판례를 통해 본 자동차사고와 자동차시세하락손해(감가손해)에 대한 고찰

Abstract

Article 393(1) of the Civil Act limits the scope of damages arising from non-performance to ordinary damages, and paragraph (2) of the same Article provides, “The obligor is responsible for reparation for damages that have arisen through special circumstances, only if he/she had foreseen or could have foreseen such circumstances.” The term ‘ordinary damages’ refers to a damage ordinarily arising from non-performance, unless special circumstances exist, in view of generally accepted transactional practices or empirical rules, and damage arising from a special circumstance means a damage incurred due to individual and specific circumstances of the parties involved. Therefore, the driver(perpetrator) of the automobile accident shall compensate for damages arising from non-performance, if he/she knew or should have known the existence of a special circumstance. There have been many arguments over what the nature of damage of depreciation is whether or not it ordinary damages or special damages. Recently, if a car has suffered partial destruction, the Supreme Court sentenced three rulings to that damage of depreciation is ordinary damages.(the Supreme Court reverse the judgment of the court below, and remand the case to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this opinion) I agree with the judgment of the Supreme Court. To this study, I proposed that the method of calculating damage of depreciation is deemed reasonable in principle, it is recognized the difference between the exchange price after the repair and the exchange price prior to the accident. However, to evaluate the exchange value of the car after repair, which affects the valuation elements and repair characteristics factors based on this specific accident damagedcondition of the car, repair range, repair methods, repair costs, market transactions, taking into account the vehicle's depreciation appraisal method were investigated.