1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer that entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “instant vehicle”).

B. On April 16, 2016, around 19:50, trees (hereinafter “the instant trees”) were destroyed by the front glass and burds in front of the instant vehicle, which was parked on a parking lot located within a resting area B located in the direction of the west Coast Highway (hereinafter “instant trees”).

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

The defendant is the managing body of the above expressway rest area, which is the location of the accident of this case.

On April 26, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,803,90 at the repair cost of the instant vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence No. 3, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant, as the managing body of the expressway rest area, which is the point of the instant accident, neglected to manage the vehicle parked in the rest area, despite the fact that the Defendant had the duty to manage the vehicle in the rest area. Accordingly, the accident of this case occurred, the defendant is obligated to pay the indemnity amount of KRW 1,803,90 and the damages for delay to the plaintiff.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the accident of this case is not caused by the defendant's management defects, but by the natural history of force majeure (the strong wind of 18 to 26 m/S), and that the plaintiff's claim is unfair since it is not likely to expect and avoid.

B. According to the records in Eul evidence No. 5, it is recognized that the defendant had regularly managed the trees of this case, including the electric power plant performed on June 1, 2015.

However, according to the images of Eul No. 3, it is recognized that the trees of this case were next slopes to the expressway parking lot, and in such a case, the defendant who manages the expressway rest area is to ensure the safety of those who use the parking lot in the rest area.