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. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to Cenz’s automobiles owned by B (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s automobiles”).

B. B, around 17:00 on August 9, 2014, driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle and visited “E” located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, which the Defendant operated by the Defendant, and was in charge of the parking of the said beauty room, and left the parking of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the employee immediately thereafter, parked the Plaintiff’s vehicle in a public parking lot near the said beauty room.

C. After that, there was an accident in which F vehicle (hereinafter “F”) shocks the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”) at the said public parking lot, and the part of the Plaintiff’s driver’s seat and the pentar was damaged. Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid the Plaintiff KRW 11,680,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle until November 12, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same as the same), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the primary claim (the employer's liability under Article 756(1) of the Civil Act)

A. The plaintiff's primary assertion that, as the employee in charge of parking employed by the defendant parked the plaintiff's vehicle in the parking lot of the cosmetic operated by the defendant and caused the accident of this case where the plaintiff is shocking the plaintiff's vehicle, the above employee in charge of parking caused the accident of this case. Thus, the defendant who neglected his duty of management and supervision pursuant to Article 756 (1) of the Civil Code is liable to pay the above insurance money to the plaintiff who subrogated the right to claim compensation of the above insurance money.

B. We examine the judgment, and the employee in charge of parking employed by the Defendant was parked on behalf of the Plaintiff and his starting strings with the Plaintiff’s vehicle and its starting strings, and thereafter, in the parking lot where the Plaintiff’s vehicle was parked.