logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.05.21 2019나62415
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the vehicle at the time of the traffic accident listed below (hereinafter “the instant accident”). The Defendant is the insurer who concluded the automobile insurance contract with respect to the instant sea vehicle that caused the instant accident.

Plaintiff

On August 27, 2015, 2016, Sep. 4, 2016, 2016, 100% of the fault ratio A CK5, driving a drinking vehicle at the intersection on September 4, 2016, when the details of the initial traffic accident on the date of the first registration of the vehicle.

B. At the time of the instant accident, the odometer, average market price, repair cost, and repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle are as listed below.

The average repair cost and particulars of the Plaintiff’s average market value of the odometer 11,947km 24,700,000 won 20,043,730 won 6,076,345 won - Major frameworks: Sheets and wheelchairs - Outboards - One time (repair cost of 49,000 won) exchange with the shoulder, scam, and fences (repair cost of 49,000 won)

C. The Defendant paid insurance proceeds of KRW 8,966,378 to the Plaintiff’s vehicle repair cost, etc. due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the result of the appraisal commission of appraiser D by the first instance court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion in the instant case led to a serious damage to the Plaintiff’s main structural part, such as destruction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s main structural part, making it impossible to repair the Plaintiff’s vehicle which was technically possible to restore to its original state even after completion of its repair. As a result, the Plaintiff’s loss (so-called “satise damage”), and thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay KRW 2,230,000 to the Plaintiff with compensation for the satise damage.

(b) When an article is damaged due to a tort committed in the course of the occurrence of liability for damages resulting from a decline in the exchange value, the amount of ordinary damages shall be the repairing cost, if acceptable, and the exchange value, if not possible;

arrow