1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract (the insurance period: from March 4, 2017 to March 4, 2018) with respect to the automobile C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a company that conducts construction business, equipment construction business, etc.

B. On June 23, 2017, the Defendant: (a) performed the steel-frame painting work using paints at the E-site located in Sincheon-si D (hereinafter “instant construction site”); (b) an accident was caused by the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s damage (hereinafter “instant accident”) due to the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s malfunctioning on the entire surface of the Plaintiff’s vehicle that was parked in the vicinity.

C. On July 31, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 9,230,000, excluding KRW 300,000,000, for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident, and KRW 500,00,000, in total, for additional repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 2, 4, 8, and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that (1) since the defendant did not take measures such as vehicle moving guidance while carrying out painting, the accident of this case occurred due to the defendant's gross negligence, and due to which the plaintiff paid KRW 9,730,000 as the repair cost of the plaintiff's vehicle, the plaintiff asserted that the above money is claimed in accordance with the insurer's subrogation doctrine.

(2) The Defendant requested the construction supervisor to affix a steel-frame to the construction site to the outside to prevent damage caused by car dust. However, according to the construction supervisor’s instruction, the Defendant continued to carry out the steel-frameing work at the construction site of this case, and performed the best measures to prevent damage, such as vehicle moving guide prior to the work, and the Defendant’s negligence on the Plaintiff’s vehicle that did not comply with the Defendant’s vehicle moving guide should be considered.