1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

Judgment of the first instance.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive insurance contract for movable property with the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency for multi-functional unmanned monitoring camera, and the Defendant is a contractor who ordered the improvement of news reports in the City/Do in 2014 (hereinafter “instant construction”) with the content of maintaining the news block from May 17, 2014 to July 17, 2014 on the ground that the joint Defendant-Defendant Limited Partnership (hereinafter “FF”) was laid down on May 16, 2014.

B. The instant construction included the maintenance work on the front news block portion of 52 Masan-ro 1, 52 Masan-ro 501, Masan-ro, Mapo-gu, Seoul. However, around the foregoing news block, the Plaintiff’s license for multi-functional unmanned monitoring camera installed and operated by the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency was laid down below 9 cm from the ground surface.

C. Around June 20, 2014, the Seoul Local Police Agency discovered that the unmanned car camera signal installed at the above location was not boomed. As a result of the investigation, it was found that the boomed was damaged by the unmanned car camera when performing the instant construction.

hereinafter referred to as "the accident of this case"

(D) On March 19, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,045,121 as insurance money for the damaged unmanned Camers license corporation to which the authority to receive insurance money was delegated by the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency on March 19, 2015. [Grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff did not dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including virtual numbers, as well as the descriptions, images, and the purport of the entire pleadings of the Plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant, as the contractor and supervisor of the construction of this case, had investigated road obstacles in advance and prevented damage to the unmanned camera, but did not conduct an investigation of obstacles or conducted an investigation in bad faith, thereby causing the accident of this case. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for damages under Article 750 or 756 of the Civil Act.

Therefore, the plaintiff is insured in accordance with the comprehensive movable insurance contract.