1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

1. The Plaintiff is the insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the E vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the owner of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F building.

The parking facility of the above building is a parking facility where a driver stops while leaving a vehicle before the entrance of the parking facility. The parking facility of the parking lot management personnel operates the circuit so that the vehicle can enter the entrance of the parking facility and then the driver can enter the parking facility by driving the vehicle.

G, around 14:30 on November 3, 2016, around H, a manager of the parking lot of the building above, stopped in a state where the Plaintiff’s vehicle was loaded on the revolving, according to H’s new title, which is a manager of the parking lot of the building above, and H had an accident that the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was faced with and damaged by the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle while he operated the revolving plate and moved the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

On December 13, 2016, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 670,000 at the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defect in the establishment and preservation of a structure under Article 758(1) of the Civil Act refers to a state in which a structure fails to meet safety requirements ordinarily for its use. In determining whether such safety requirements are met, the determination shall be based on whether the installer and custodian of the structure has fulfilled the duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the risk of the structure.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 9Da39548 delivered on January 4, 200, 200; 2008Da61615 delivered on February 11, 2010, etc.). According to the above facts and evidence, there were abnormals loaded onto the wheel at the time of the instant accident, and the front wheeler of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was faced with the above abnormals at the time of the instant accident. The instant accident was the owner of the instant parking facility.