1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 22, 2014, the Plaintiff issued a traffic accident that conflicts with the Defendant’s insured vehicle (C) (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”), which is moving from three lanes to one lane while driving a road located in the Gangseo-gu, Ansan-si, Ansan-si (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”) around 15:50 on January 22, 2014.

B. Due to the above traffic accident, the 1,326,640 won was damaged by the front gate and the right gate of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the Defendant paid the repair cost and towing cost in total.

[Ground] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 6-1 to 3, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion caused the decline in the market price of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant traffic accident, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the amount equivalent to the exchange value that has been reduced separately from the repair cost.

B. The amount of damages when the goods were damaged due to a tort shall be the cost of repair if it is possible to repair them, and if it is impossible to repair them, the reduced exchange value shall be the ordinary amount of damages. In a case where parts that cannot be repaired remain after repair, in addition to the cost of repair, the reduced exchange value due to the impossibility of repair shall be the ordinary damages (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da52889, Nov. 13, 2001). However, there is an empirical rule that, in addition to the cost of repair where a vehicle was damaged due to a collision but it is possible to repair them, the reduced exchange value shall always be subject to the reduced exchange value

(1) or (2) it can not be deemed that such damage can normally be expected.

I would like to say.

(See Supreme Court Decision 81Da8, Jun. 22, 1982). In light of the above legal doctrine, the evidence submitted in the instant case alone remains in the part where it is impossible to repair part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle even after repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and thereby, the damage to the market price decline.