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 insurance contract with the Plaintiff for CMW 320d vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), and the Defendant is the manager of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office-type mechanical parking lot (hereinafter “instant parking lot”).

B. On June 19, 2013, B’s wife parked the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the instant parking lot. On the same day, during the process of running a vehicle at 19:40 vehicle on the same day, it was found that the instant parking lot was destroyed by the Twitk, Twiter, back glass, etc. of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). The parking manager E of the instant parking lot discovered that the said parking machine does not work at around 11:00 on the same day, and contacted F with technical directors of the excursion elevator company, which is a parking machine managing entity, and F discovered that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was damaged by the instant parking machine while open, and parked at the end of the between the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

C. On November 29, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 16,256,00 of the insurance money with the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements or images of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 4, part of Eul's evidence Nos. 1 and 2, witness F's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Article 19-3(2) of the Parking Lot Act provides that Article 17 of the Parking Lot Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the manager of an annexed parking lot to determine the cause of the claim, and Article 17(3) of the Parking Lot Act provides that “The parking lot manager shall not be exempt from liability to compensate for damage caused by the loss of or damage to the relevant motor vehicle, except where he/she proves that he/she has not been negligent in performing his/her duty of care as a good manager with respect to the custody of the motor vehicle parked in the parking lot.” Thus, the Defendant, who is the manager of the instant parking lot, does not prove