구상금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to pay below shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract (Article 45(1) of the Automobile Management Contract (hereinafter “Plaintiff-Motor Vehicle”) with the insured with respect to C-A-Wed Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff-Wed Vehicle”).
B. Around 14:00 on July 18, 2014, D parked the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the ground parking lot of the Dong-gu Busan Metropolitan City E (hereinafter “instant apartment”). Around July 14, 2014, the apartment building of this case, which was owned by the Defendant and resided in the scopic wind of the scopic 102 Dong-gu and 2201, the front glass of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was broken, and the front glass and Bos, etc. were destroyed by the Plaintiff’s vehicle
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.
At the time of the instant accident, there was an accident, such as the sudden wind of 17.1m high speed of the sudden wind, the width of which is exceeded, and the width of the construction site, but the place where the glass window was broken out was only 102 dong 2201, the Defendant’s ownership.
On August 19, 2014, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 1,744,80 in total with the repair cost, etc. of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. As above, if the accident of this case, among the apartment buildings in this case, which are owned by the Defendant, has broken down the strong wind, it is correct to view that the accident of this case caused the defect in the installation or preservation of the glass window of the above apartment (the defendant's assertion that the accident of this case was caused solely by a natural disaster that is force majeure such as strong wind is not accepted). The defendant is the possessor and the owner, who are the owner of the apartment of this case, to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff.
3. Limit of liability, however, according to the above facts, the accident of this case is a natural power, and the building of a glass for the defendant's apartment.