1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. On June 27, 2018, at the time of the occurrence of the basic fact-finding accident, the insured vehicle in the condition of the mechanical parking lot of the D-building No. C, the insured vehicle of the insured vehicle of the insured vehicle of the insured vehicle of the insurance relationship, which was parked in the Defendant’s D-building mechanical parking lot in light of light lighting time at the location of the D-building No. 16:54, Jun. 27, 2018, the Plaintiff paid insurance money for damage (hereinafter “instant accident”) to the right side of the Plaintiff vehicle and wheel-type parking lot on the home of the wheel-type mechanical parking lot of the Plaintiff’s D-building No. 2,041,00 won on September 21, 2018, is as follows.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, video, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence and the overall purport of the oral argument, i.e., ① the manager of a mechanical parking lot, despite the fact that the vehicle, which accurately notifies and enters the specifications of the vehicle that could have been stored, failed to perform such duties, and the negligence by the manager of the Defendant’s side, was the main cause of the instant accident. ② The driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle also has the duty of care to enter the vehicle by examining whether the vehicle was in contact with the machinery, but the driver of the vehicle was set up at the front direction of the vehicle at the time, but did not properly examine the vehicle, and the Plaintiff’s negligence was deemed to have contributed to the considerable portion of the instant accident. In full view of the above, the instant accident can be deemed to have been caused by the negligence between the Plaintiff’s driver and the Defendant’s manager, in light of all the circumstances revealed in the oral proceedings, including the background of the instant accident and the shock portion of the vehicle. Furthermore, the ratio between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s manager and the Defendant’s fault is reasonable.

(b).