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.

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicles owned by A (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff vehicle”).

The defendant is a construction company that constructs a new building in the vicinity of A's dwelling area.

A around March 26, 2018, around 17:27, around 2018, parked the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the house parking lot A located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul. However, at the same time, the Plaintiff asserted that “Flishers et al., who worked at the Defendant’s construction site, flicked the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the front day, and claimed repair expenses to the Plaintiff.”

On April 17, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,040,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole argument of the parties concerned is that the defendant's employee who asserted the plaintiff's assertion of the parties to the whole purport of the argument is cut off the plaintiff's vehicle, and thus the defendant is liable to the employer, and the defendant is liable to pay the insurer's subrogation amount to the plaintiff who exercises the right

The defendant's assertion that it is impossible for the plaintiff's vehicle to protruding away from the place where the plaintiff's vehicle was parked at the defendant's construction site, and the defendant's employees only removed dust from the low-only dust of the vehicle, and thus, there was no flicking country in the plaintiff's vehicle.

Judgment

We examine whether the act of the defendant's employee caused a flag to the plaintiff's vehicle.

Even based on each image of the vehicle damaged photographs (Evidence No. 2) submitted by the Plaintiff, it is difficult to easily find out whether the Plaintiff was flickly flicked in any part of the main set of the Plaintiff vehicle, and according to the Defendant’s employee’s vehicle flick image (Evidence No. 4), it can be seen that the dust of the vehicles parked in the same building, including the Plaintiff’s vehicle, is removed from dust for the same vehicle. However, in the case of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the part claimed to be used only in the front glass and that the Plaintiff flicked.