1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the plaintiff's loss against the defendant A, which corresponds to the money of the next order for payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to D automobiles owned by C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”)

B. On June 9, 2013, at around 12:19, C parked the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the back side of the Seo-gu Incheon Seo-gu Incheon apartment complex. However, the fire under the above apartment building No. 805-703 (hereinafter “the instant fire”) owned and occupied by Defendant A was destroyed by the Plaintiff’s vehicle far away from the strike, such as a shoulderer bedle and glass window.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

At the time of the accident, the road where the Plaintiff’s vehicle was parked was prohibited from stopping.

On September 11, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,683,00 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-5 (including virtual numbers), Eul 1-3 and the purport of the whole of the arguments and videos.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendants alleged by the Plaintiff are liable for damages to C caused by the instant accident pursuant to Article 758(1) of the Civil Act or Article 750 of the Civil Act. Therefore, the Defendants are liable to pay KRW 2,683,00 to the Plaintiff, who subrogated each of them C, and the damages for delay.

B. Defendant A’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was parked in the parking and stopping prohibition zone, and thus, the Defendant is not liable to compensate for the damage. Since the instant fire occurrence and burning are the responsibility of the Defendant B’s council of occupants’ representatives (hereinafter “Defendant B’s council”) that neglected the maintenance and management of fire-fighting systems and prevention of safety accidents, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant A is liable to compensate for the instant accident.

C. The fire of this case by the Defendant’s council of occupants’ representatives was caused by the electrical factors of the household that is not the section for common use, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was illegally parked outside of the apartment complex, not the apartment complex.