2. The defendant.

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract (hereinafter “each of the instant insurance contracts”) with respect to vehicles E and FK7 (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle3”) with respect to vehicles of C and D (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle1”)

B. At around 07:00 on October 11, 2013, the Defendant carried out painting operations at the factory located within the Anncheon-dong Anncheon-dong (hereinafter “Defendant factory”) and at the Defendant’s factory facilities.

C. On the same day, Plaintiff 1, 2, and 3 (hereinafter “each Plaintiff’s vehicle”) parked in the parking lot of the Defendant’s factory facilities immediately adjacent to the Defendant’s factory facilities were buried in the cover cover amounting to KRW 600,000,000 for each of the repair cost of Plaintiff 1 and 3, and KRW 780,000 for the repair cost of Plaintiff 2,000,000 for each of the instant insurance contracts.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements and images, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' arguments and the judgment on them

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant did not install a spaculing prevention against scattering while running the factory facilities of the defendant, and each plaintiff's vehicle was damaged by each plaintiff's vehicle due to the wind. Thus, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for damages equivalent to 19.80,000 won of the repair cost incurred by the defendant's tort, in accordance with the subrogation provision under the Commercial Act.

In regard to this, there is no evidence to prove that each plaintiff's car was asked for a paint work for the defendant's factory facilities, and even if such damage was incurred due to the above paint work, the plaintiff has contracted the above paint work to a third party, so the plaintiff is liable to compensate for such damage.