1. The Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff was made on April 18, 2019 by Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2019 Ghana30605.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff occupies and manages the 1st floor mechanical parking machine (hereinafter “instant parking machine”) underground in Busan Dong-gu, Busan (hereinafter “D”), and the Defendant is the insurer of the E vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On December 28, 2018, the Defendant’s vehicle moved to the wheel board of the instant parking machine around 12:00.

The Defendant’s vehicle shocked another vehicle (F; hereinafter referred to as “victim”) that was parked while turning back the wheel.

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

On April 15, 2019, the Defendant alleged that the instant accident occurred due to the Plaintiff’s fault in managing the instant parking machine, and filed a claim for reimbursement against the Plaintiff.

On April 18, 2019, the court rendered a decision of performance recommendation to the effect that "the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant KRW 1,655,300 and delay damages therefor", and the decision was finalized on May 8, 2019.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on performance recommendation”). [The grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 5, or the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The gist of the party’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s instant accident was not caused by the Plaintiff’s irregular management of the instant parking machine, but by the Plaintiff’s exceptional act. As such, the Plaintiff is not liable for damages. (2) The Defendant Plaintiff should have had the instant parking machine manager assigned the trainee, let the relevant parking facility stop safely and accurately, and confirmed whether the driver was in a neutral state.

In addition, the damaged vehicle was parked at a place where there is no parking zone line, but the plaintiff should have moved the damaged vehicle for the vehicle to move.

B. According to the statements or images of Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 1, and 2, the plaintiff's employee will leave the parking office and the defendant.