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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to the Universal Social Company (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the AM5 vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded the comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with B and C (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On October 16, 2014, B driven the Defendant vehicle at one hour and parked in an outdoor parking lot attached to the F golf course located in Ulsan-gun E (hereinafter “instant parking lot”) operated by D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) around 11:50 to 11:55 on the same day.

C. At around 12:35 October 2016, 2014, after the parking of the Defendant vehicle B and the expiration of 30 minutes, a fire occurred due to a white delay on the front of the Defendant vehicle, and the Plaintiff vehicle parked in the front column of the Defendant vehicle was partially destroyed from the Defendant vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant fire accident”). D.

The Plaintiff paid KRW 5,980,000 for repair costs to the Universal Social Group as insurance money for the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the Plaintiff’s owner and the possessor of the Defendant’s vehicle B neglected to maintain and manage the Defendant’s vehicle and caused a fire, they are liable to compensate for the damages caused by the instant fire accident. The Defendant is an insurer that concluded the automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle, and is liable to pay the Plaintiff the indemnity amount equivalent to the above repair cost of KRW 5,980,000 and the damages for delay.

B. Defendant 1’s occurrence of the instant fire accident is unclear, the possibility of fire prevention cannot be excluded, and the vehicle maintenance by B has been conducted periodically. Therefore, it can be deemed that B was negligent in the maintenance and management of the Defendant vehicle.