1. The Defendant’s KRW 52,00,000 as well as its annual 5% from May 4, 2016 to November 11, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The defendant is a person who manages the building of the Young-gu B commercial building in Suwon-si.

B. On May 4, 2016, around 12:00, the Plaintiff’s husband C parked a “S350 Bridge” car owned by the Plaintiff at the outdoor parking lot of the building in the above commercial building. However, the Plaintiff’s automobile was destroyed by the Plaintiff’s car located on the rooftop on the strong wind.

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

The repair of the damaged plaintiff vehicle requires KRW 70,276,602, and the market price of the plaintiff vehicle at the time of the accident is KRW 52,00,000.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 4, Eul's 4, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the above damages suffered by the plaintiff were derived from the result of the defendant's failure to exercise his duty to manage the above building. As such, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for damages. 2) As to this, the defendant, at the time of the accident of this case, the maximum wind between May 4, 2016, which was the time of the accident of this case, reached 17m/s, and the plaintiff's automobile was damaged due to a natural disaster that was extremely unexpected to the general public because the maximum wind between the moment of the accident of this case, which was the time of the accident of this case, was not the time of the accident of this case, and thus, the defendant is not liable for the accident of this case. However, the defendant asserted that the defendant did not have neglected to exercise his duty to prevent damages. Thus,

B. It is reasonable to view the amount of damages that the Defendant is liable for damages as KRW 52,00,000, which falls under the smaller of the repair cost and exchange value of the said vehicle. As such, the Defendant, from May 4, 2016, to November 11, 2016, where it is deemed reasonable to dispute the Plaintiff regarding the existence and scope of the Defendant’s performance obligation, from May 4, 2016, which is the date of this decision, to the extent that it is reasonable to dispute on the existence and scope of the Defendant’s performance obligation.