1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile comprehensive insurance contract including self-car and hand hand with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”) as the insured.

B. On December 6, 2013, B entered into a vehicle maintenance contract with the Defendant, who is a vehicle maintenance business operator, with respect to the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and delivered the said vehicle to the E-maintenance Business Factory of the Defendant’s Operation, located in Incheon Dong-gu.

C. On December 9, 2013, around 01:20, the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was kept in custody on the wind to move to the Defendant’s factory, caused fire from the occurrence of a fire from the waste container in the waste treatment plant operated by the Codefendant, Codefendant, Ltd., F (hereinafter “F”) of the first instance trial located adjacent to the above factory.

(hereinafter “the instant fire”). D.

On January 13, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 19,280,00 to the Plaintiff’s automobile with the total indemnity insurance money.

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

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, the defendant, who entered into a vehicle maintenance contract with B, is obligated to repair the plaintiff's vehicle and return it. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for damages caused by the fire of this case, barring any special circumstance, and the plaintiff who paid the insurance money to B is deemed to have acquired by subrogation the plaintiff's damage claim against the plaintiff within the scope of the insurance money paid in accordance with the legal principles of subrogation by the insurer.

In regard to this, the Defendant asserts that there was no negligence on the occurrence of the instant fire, and that there was no liability for damages against B as the Defendant fulfilled the duty of due care as a good manager in the storage of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. Thus, the instant fire is acknowledged as having added the whole purport of the pleadings to each of the following circumstances, namely, the instant fire, which is acknowledged as having been included in the evidence Nos. 11, 12 (including paper numbers), 6, 7, and 8.