1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff equivalent to the amount ordered under paragraph (2) shall be revoked.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”).

The defendant is operating a parking lot equipped with mechanical parking facilities in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as “instant parking facilities”), and is receiving 3,000 won parking fees per 30 minutes from customers.

B. On July 8, 2018, a proxy parking engineer affiliated with the Defendant was driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle assigned to the Defendant and stored in the instant parking facility.

On the same day, however, at around 13:36, the body was found to have been damaged, such as the string of the Plaintiff vehicle, which was kept in custody in the parking facility of this case.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). This is presumed to be an accident that happens when the body and parking facilities of the Plaintiff’s vehicle are faced with the wind, which is opened between the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the course of storage and delivery of the instant parking facilities.

C. On July 27, 2018, the Plaintiff paid 4 million won, deducting 500,000 won of the Plaintiff’s automobile repair cost due to the instant accident, as insurance proceeds.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry and video of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 11 (including virtual numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is in the status of a paid parking lot manager of the parking lot who parks a customer's vehicle using the instant parking facility and accordingly receives parking fees.

Unless the manager of a paid annexed parking lot proves that he/she has not neglected his/her duty of due care as a good manager with respect to the custody of the parked motor vehicle, he/she shall not be exempted from liability

(Article 19-3 and Article 17(3) of the Parking Lot Act). According to the video and evidence No. 9, the Plaintiff’s vehicle appears to have been put into storage in the instant parking facility without being opened at the time of being put into storage.

Since then, the parking facility of this case is located.