1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to B vehicles owned by A and A (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”) and the Defendant is an insurer who entered into an insurance contract with CA building management body in which the following accidents occurred to compensate for any contingency arising from the performance of parking business in accordance with the use of parking facilities and their facilities:

B. On January 2, 2013, at around 10:30 on January 2, 2013, A driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle and provided access roads to an underground parking lot under the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Building C (hereinafter “instant underground parking lot”), which was shocked the rail of access roads to the underground parking lot with the front seat of the Plaintiff’s driver’s seat.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

By February 21, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 9,070,000 in total for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, and the purport of the whole entry or video, or pleading of Gap's 1 through 10 (including each number)

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the cause of the instant claim. At the time of the instant accident, the Defendant, the insurer of the instant underground parking lot, asserts that the Defendant is liable for reimbursement of KRW 7,256,00,00, on the ground that the snow accumulated on the floor of the access road to the instant underground parking lot, was melted, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was melted on the ice ice ice. In such a case, as a manager and manager of the instant underground parking lot, the Defendant was negligent in neglecting the duty of care to remove the ice ice portion in the instant underground parking lot, and at least 80% of the instant accident is responsible for the instant accident.

B. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was a ice tag attached to the floor of the access road to the instant underground parking lot at the time of the instant accident, there was an accident explanatory note (Evidence A 3) in preparation of A, a driver of the Plaintiff, but this was unilaterally prepared by A.