구상금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
1. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”).
Plaintiff
On July 9, 2016, the driver of the vehicle parked the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the first floor parking lot of the building D ground (hereinafter “instant building”) in Chungcheongnam-gun budget-gun, 2016. However, the driver suffered damage, such as the stone attached on the outer wall of the said building, which is far from the stone affixed on the outer wall of the said building, and the front glass of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was broken.
On July 19, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,030,100 as insurance money for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle related to the said accident.
At the time of the accident, the owner of the instant building was B, and the Defendant occupied the instant building by asserting that he was the lien holder with the claim for construction cost of KRW 8,120,000 against B.
[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Evidence Nos. 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the fact of recognition of the occurrence of liability for damages, the accident in this case is caused by the defect in the construction or preservation of the building. The defendant asserted that the right of retention exists based on the construction price claim against the owner B of the building and occupied the building in this case, and thus, the owner of the plaintiff vehicle is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the owner of the building in accordance with Article 75
In regard to this, the Defendant asserts that the date of the accident occurred on July 4, 2016, and the accident in this case is a natural disaster caused by heavy rain, and thus, the Defendant is not liable to the Defendant. According to the entries and the purport of the evidence No. 1 of subparagraph B as to July 4, 2016, according to the purport of the whole arguments and the statement of the evidence No. 1 of subparagraph B, it is recognized that the rainfall accompanied by 179.1m of rainfall in Daejeon area on July 4, 2016, and 23 hours and 30% of the number of rainfalls was observed, but it is further recognized that the accident in this case occurred on July 4, 2016, unlike the recognition prior to the accident in this case, and even if it is for domestic affairs, the Defendant paid due attention necessary for the prevention of the accident in this case