beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 997,371 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from February 26, 2018 to September 4, 2019, and the following.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The relevant Plaintiff is the owner of Crane vehicle (hereinafter “instant vehicle”). The Defendant is a person who has installed and managed a sign prohibiting parking and a sign prohibiting entry (hereinafter “instant structure”) in order to park his own car on the site of the Defendant’s housing while residing in a multi-household detached housing E (hereinafter “Defendant’s housing”) for a multi-household in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul.
B. On February 24, 2018, the Plaintiff was faced with the right side of the instant vehicle in the instant structure while driving the instant vehicle at around 14:30, and driving the instant vehicle at a right right side (hereinafter “instant accident”).
C. At the time of the instant accident, the instant structure was installed on the site of the Defendant’s house, such as the images of the attached pictures, along with the signboard prohibiting parking. The instant structure was installed on the site of the Defendant’s house, and prevents parking of other vehicles. When the Defendant parks his own vehicle, the instant structure was set off vertically below the instant structure, and the signboard prohibiting parking is parked immediately below the board.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry and video of Gap's 1 to 3, 7 through 15 (including the branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The plaintiff's structure of this case is too low in height, is not easily seen because it is not formed as a type light or reflect plate, and it is directly installed on the road boundary line, and even if the vehicle operator fulfilled his duty of care, it is difficult for the vehicle operator to prevent accidents due to smoke. Moreover, the defendant did not make the structure of this case into plastic in order to prevent accidents of other vehicles while installing the structure of this case.
Therefore, the accident of this case is due to the defect in the installation and preservation of the structure of this case installed by the defendant.