The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

judgment of the first instance.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with C and D (hereinafter “Plaintiff”).

B. Around August 2018, the Defendant entered into a contract with the representative meeting of occupants of Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government E Apartment Complex (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and with respect to the said apartment underground parking lot (hereinafter “instant apartment parking lot”) floor air-heating, repairing, and heating construction (hereinafter “instant construction”) for the construction cost of KRW 108,90,000 and the construction period from August 9, 2018 to October 7, 2018.

C. On September 15, 2018, C residing in the apartment of this case: (a) driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle to enter the third floor of the parking lot of this case, and (b) went to the third floor of the parking lot of this case; and (c) was asked to ask the Plaintiff for a sudden wave on the lower part of the typ and the lower part of the vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). D.

On September 10, 2019, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 10,540,300, which deducts KRW 500,000 of the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle from the instant accident.

E. Meanwhile, at the time of the occurrence of the instant accident, the Defendant was engaged in hardening operations.

Before the date of the instant accident, the Defendant posted a document informing that the instant apartment management office and the Defendant had been engaged in the Embry work at the said apartment site, and provided guidance broadcasts several times, and installed safety belts and Rabcon at the location of the instant parking lot work zone.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3 through 7, 9, 10-1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s allegation that the instant parking lot was difficult to lower the normal level due to the instant construction, and was in a state where the ebbomb was not completed.

The defendant, even though he was obligated to prevent the entry of the vehicle into the instant parking lot before the width of the vehicle is completely completed, shall be the said parking lot.