1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 6, 2012, at around 13:30, the circumstances of the instant accident: (a) around 13:30, Gangnam-gu Seoul apartment zone installed E-bridges in contact with the 13th floor rail; (b) Defendant B, an employee of the board of directors operated by the Defendant A, along with other departments, placed the fences on the 13th floor of the said apartment zone (hereinafter “instant fences”); (c) a vehicle that was parked on the said apartment parking lot (hereinafter “victims”). On a strong wind, the said fences were damaged by the F-vehicle that was parked on the said apartment parking lot.

The work guidelines for the safety of the bridges issued by the Safety and Health Authority provide that the work shall be prohibited in the event of a strong wind of 10m/s. At the time of the instant accident, there was a strong wind of up to 11.4m/s at the time of the instant accident, and there was no protective partitions to prevent the fall of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

B. After paying KRW 7,130,000 to the owner G of the damaged vehicle at the cost of repairing the damaged vehicle, which is an insurer of the damaged vehicle, such as the progress of the relevant lawsuit, the lower court filed a lawsuit against C and the Defendants seeking reimbursement against C and the Seoul Central District Court No. 2012 Ghana501285.

In the foregoing case, on September 4, 2012, the court rendered a recommendation of execution jointly and severally with the Defendant (C and the Defendants) that “The Defendant would pay the Plaintiff 7,130,000 won and interest in arrears for the said amount.” On July 9, 2013, the said decision became final and conclusive against C, and on October 25, 2013, with respect to the Defendants who raised an objection to the said decision of performance recommendation, the said decision became final and conclusive around that time.

Plaintiff

On December 6, 2013, the Plaintiff, the insurer of the vehicle, paid KRW 7,130,000 to the more cases damage insurance company in accordance with the performance recommendation decision.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10.