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. The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings on the entries and videos set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 6.

The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff’s vehicle B (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”).

B. On April 13, 2016, around 19:51, the Plaintiff’s vehicle parked in the entry section of the D parking lot located in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, in the vicinity of the commercial building entrance, and the Defendant: (a) opened the entrance door to leave the building outside of the commercial building; and (b) caused the accident that the lower part of the entrance door and the left part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle face (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On May 18, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 100,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in relation to the instant accident.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In a case where the plaintiff's alleged entrance door cannot be confirmed, the defendant has a duty of care to open the entrance in a case where safety is ensured by opening several entrances and examining the surrounding areas, and in violation of this, the defendant is obliged to pay the amount stated in the purport of the claim to the plaintiff, since the accident of this case occurred by the whole negligence of the defendant.

B. The following circumstances acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, that the Defendant did not have a corrective device and did not attach a warning regarding the use of the entrance on the inside of the entrance (However, it cannot be viewed as prohibiting the user of the entrance, and such a sign cannot be confirmed inside the building, because there is a sign attached to the outside of the entrance, and it cannot be viewed as prohibiting the user of the entrance, and such sign cannot be confirmed inside the entrance). The Defendant’s entrance was attached to the inside of the entrance, and the Defendant’s entrance was not active, but 1/3.