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.

1. On July 13, 2015, the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) the Defendant: (b) on July 13, 2015, when carrying out red paintings work at the housing located in Gangnam-si, and (c) asked C to the Dpote vehicle owned by C; (b) the Defendant failed to comply with C with the liability to compensate for the damage incurred by C due to the above paint work; and (c) the Plaintiff, as an insurer that entered into an automobile insurance contract with C with respect to the said vehicle, paid KRW 1,104,00 for the repair cost of the said vehicle as insurance proceeds.

Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay to the plaintiff who acquired the claim for damages against C by subrogation of the insurer under Article 682 of the Commercial Act, the amount of indemnity equivalent to the above 1,104,000 won and damages for delay.

2. Therefore, it is not sufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant had engaged in red painting operations in the above house on July 13, 2015 only with the images of the scamba, Gap evidence 2 through 4, and evidence Nos. 7 (including the images of evidence No. 4), Gap evidence Nos. 5, 6, and 8, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion, which is premised on the defendant's work at the above time and place, is without reason to further examine the remainder of the issue.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair in conclusion, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.