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. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with C and D (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is a construction company which, from May 2017 to January 2018, performed the new construction work of neighborhood living facilities on the land and on the land (hereinafter “instant construction work”).

B. On September 28, 2017, around 17:50, F, a child of C, reported to the Plaintiff’s person in charge of receiving the Plaintiff’s accident to the effect that “F parked the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the street in front of the Hadang Association located in the Namdong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Nam-gu, the area adjacent to the instant construction site, and buried the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the front of the Hadg Jinia and the entire Plaintiff

C. On November 6, 2017, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 4,666,00 in total with the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion should pay attention to the vehicle parked in the vicinity while carrying out a paint work at the construction site of this case, there was an accident that the Defendant neglected to ask the Plaintiff to the vehicle parked in the vicinity so that the paint dust may not be asked, thereby resulting in an accident to ask the Plaintiff to the vehicle.

Since the Plaintiff acquired the right to claim damages against the Defendant by paying repair expenses to the insured under Article 682 of the Commercial Act, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the indemnity amount of KRW 4,66,000 and the delay damages therefrom.

B. The Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the dust that occurred during the Defendant’s paint work was laid to the Plaintiff’s vehicle by wind. However, the following circumstances, i.e., there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant had carried out the closed scrap work by means of spin-off, and the place where the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff suffered damage is parked on the side side of the area where the residence and the commercial area are mixed, but there is a lot of flat vehicles other than the Plaintiff’s vehicle.