1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to B vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a business operator who operates the parking lot on the third floor of the building in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant parking lot”).

B. On August 22, 2013, at around 09:30, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was moving back to park in the instant parking lot, and the vehicle’s back wheels had first contacted the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s front of contact with the instant parking lot columns before the latter wheels became contacted.

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

On January 9, 2014, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 427,00 as automobile repair expenses.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of whole pleadings

2. Occurrence and scope of liability for damages;

A. “Defect in the construction or maintenance of a structure” under Article 758(1) of the Civil Act refers to a state in which a structure fails to meet normal safety requirements according to its use. In determining whether such safety requirements are met, the determination shall be based on whether the installer or custodian of the structure has fulfilled his/her duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the risk of the structure.

(1) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s rear wheels prior to the stop of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to contact with the columns of the instant parking lot and the instant accident occurred, the said parking lot was in a state of failing to meet the safety required by social norms. However, there is no evidence to support the Defendant’s prior notification of such circumstance or the Defendant’s attachment of a guide sign, etc., and thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have fulfilled its duty to take protective measures regarding the management of the said parking lot.

Therefore, it is true.