1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On November 9, 2012, the Defendant, while driving a CM7 car (hereinafter “instant car”) with a blood alcohol content of 0.123% at around 04:02, and starting from the “E station” of the Plaintiff’s operation in SM7 car (hereinafter “instant car”) at SM7 car at SM7.123% at Sacheon-si, and continued to run as the “E station” of the Plaintiff’s operation in Sacheon-si, the road front of the said station at Samcheon-si, the central separation zone was set.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

Around that time, a standing signboard set up in the above “E station” was destroyed, and the Plaintiff, around January 29, 2013, posted KRW 4,500,100 at its own expense while newly installing the standing signboard at around January 29, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to the repair cost, since the Defendant received standing signboards owned by the Plaintiff, which were installed in the above gas station, from the point of origin of the “E gas station” immediately before the instant accident, and damaged the Plaintiff’s repair cost of KRW 4,500,100.

The above recognition alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant damaged the standing signboard by driving the car of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, according to the evidence Nos. 1 and 3-11 and 13 of evidence Nos. 11 and 3-13, the part that is far away from the damaged signboard is not a part of the car of this case with rainwater, attached to the front door of the front side of the vehicle. The height of a shade in front of the vehicle of this case is about 52 cm from the surface, while the shock of the front door of the vehicle of this case is about 52 cm from the surface, and the shock of the front door of the vehicle of this case differs from the floor to about 62 cm from the floor. Accordingly, the investigation agency judged that the part that damaged the front door was caused by another vehicle, and did not join the defendant in a criminal case.