1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurance company that entered into an automobile insurance contract with Nonparty C with respect to the D vehicle owned by it (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a contractor that entered into the construction of a factory of Nonparty F Co., Ltd. located in Gwangju Northern-gu from May 2017 to July 2017 (hereinafter “instant construction”).

B. On August 3, 2018, the Plaintiff’s vehicle suffered from G Co., Ltd. on August 3, 2018 due to damage to external panel seals, and repaired the entire vehicle’s seal, etc., and the date of the accident is indicated in the written estimate on July 18, 2017.

C. On September 1, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,836,600 for repair costs to G Co., Ltd., a repair business entity, as insurance proceeds for C.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry and video of Gap evidence 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. On July 18, 2017, while the Plaintiff’s work on the instant construction site was carried out, the Plaintiff incurred damage to the Plaintiff’s external painting parked in the H parking lot near the instant construction site, and the Defendant is obligated to compensate for the said damage to C.

Since the Plaintiff paid the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the repair company, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, who subrogated the Plaintiff’s right to claim damages, the amount of KRW 1,836,600 for indemnity and delay damages as stated in the purport of the claim.

B. The Defendant, from July 6, 2017 to November 11, 201 of the same month, even though, on July 18, 2017, asserted that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was damaged, he/she only worked to cover tampers at I Dong during the construction site of the instant case, and on the point that the Plaintiff’s vehicle parked, the point that the Plaintiff’s vehicle parked is located is about 50 meters away from the I Dong Dong at the time, and thus, the Defendant’s tamp work does not cause the Plaintiff’s vehicle damage.

3. Determination Nos. 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10