1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

On April 4, 2018, the first instance court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, and served a written judgment by means of service by public notice, after serving a duplicate of the complaint against the Defendant, notification of the date of pleading, etc. on the Defendant by public notice.

Therefore, the Defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to the Defendant’s failure to be aware of the delivery of the judgment without negligence. On May 30, 2018, the first instance court rendered a perusal and copy of the judgment and received the original copy of the judgment, and subsequently rendered a judgment by public notice. Accordingly, the Defendant’s appeal for subsequent completion filed by the Defendant is lawful on the same day.

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff is an insurer that entered into an automobile insurance contract with D with respect to the Plaintiff’s vehicle C (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”).

The defendant is a person who operates a driving range with a “F” trade name located in Suwon-si E (hereinafter referred to as the “instant driving range”).

D around 13:00 on July 15, 2017, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was parked in the vicinity of the instant golf driving range, but the said golf driving range was damaged by the Plaintiff’s ray.

It argues that "the insurance money equivalent to the cost of repair" was claimed and claimed.

The Plaintiff paid KRW 4,997,500 of the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle as the insurance amount for self-vehicle damage.

[Ground of recognition] The facts that there was no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4, and the plaintiff's argument that the purport of the entire pleadings was asserted by the parties to the lawsuit, but the plaintiff's vehicle was parked around the instant golf driving range. However, the golf machine, which was coming from the said golf driving range, destroyed the plaintiff's dust glass and entered the vehicle into the vehicle, and the glass wave was destroyed by the damaged part of the powder powder.

The defendant shall compensate for the plaintiff's damage as the operator of the golf driving range in this case.

Defendant’s assertion.