1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with C vehicles owned by B (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicles”), and the Defendant is the driver of D vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On August 3, 2016, around 14:02, the Plaintiff’s and the Defendant’s vehicle were parked in the first floor parking lot of the same-ro 203, 203, b9, b9, 203 Bluton-ro, Seoul Special Metropolitan City. However, the Defendant opened the driver’s seat and opened the front part of the Defendant’s seat (so-called “so-called “so-called part”) in contact with the Plaintiff’s front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

C. On November 18, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 776,000 to the part of Plaintiff’s senior knife and painting expenses, etc.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, entries and images of Gap evidence 1 to 12 (including additional numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's vehicle was damaged by the chief door of the plaintiff's vehicle while opening the driver's seat in order to board the defendant's vehicle. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay 776,000 won paid to the plaintiff as repair cost and damages for delay.

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment, Gap evidence Nos. 6 video (5 second part) and the entire pleadings, it is recognized that the defendant was aware that he had contacted the front door part of the plaintiff's vehicle, which was parked next to the defendant's vehicle while opening a driver's seat to board the defendant vehicle, but on the other hand, the contact part is not the knife part claimed by the plaintiff but the knife part and the knife part (the knife of evidence Nos. 7, 9, and 10) but the part below the front door, and it is not deemed that the speed and power of the defendant's knife and the knife of the driver's seat

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was destroyed due to other causes because the damaged condition of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was not consistent with the situation at the time.