1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer that entered into an insurance contract with respect to a vehicle A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”).

B. Around 17:00 on June 22, 2017, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was parked in Macheon-si B, but the Defendant, while carrying out painting work on the site of the construction site of the nearby area, was an accident that the Defendant was involved in the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On July 24, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,800,000 (except for KRW 200,000 on its own charges) for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, and 2, Gap evidence 3, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Comprehensively taking account of the occurrence of liability for damages and the purport of the entire argument in light of the above basic facts, the Defendant caused the instant accident by negligence, such as taking preventive measures against the Plaintiff’s vehicle parked in a nearby place so as not to ask the Plaintiff’s paint, or allowing the Plaintiff’s owner, etc. to move the Plaintiff’s vehicle to another place and park the vehicle.

Therefore, the defendant is responsible for compensating the owner of the plaintiff's vehicle for damages caused by the above accident.

On the other hand, the defendant asserted that he was not responsible because he had been bound to follow the direction of the construction supervisor. However, the defendant's assertion that the defendant is not responsible for the owner of the plaintiff's vehicle, which is a third party, is difficult to view that the defendant can be exempted from liability

B. Subsequent to the scope of damages compensation, the Plaintiff’s owner, etc. paid KRW 5,00,00 as the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the damages of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, as indicated in the health room, Gap’s evidence No. 1, and No. 2.