1. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's appeal are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the cases where the plaintiff and the defendant make an additional determination as to the assertion made by this court, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

2. Additional determination

A. (1) The appraiser C of the first instance court alleged the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was a structural defect in the instant parking facility, but the instant parking facility obtained a construction completion permit due to the lack of manufacturing and installation defects, and the structural difference occurs in the process of using the facility. Therefore, the above appraisal result cannot be trusted.

Nevertheless, it is unreasonable for the first instance court to have determined that the accident of this case is fundamentally attributable to the defect in the manufacturing and installation of the parking facility itself by adopting the appraisal result as evidence.

(2) However, the appraiser’s appraisal result should be respected unless the appraiser’s appraisal method is contrary to the rule of experience or unreasonable.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da92866 Decided December 11, 2014, and Supreme Court Decision 2018Da255648 Decided March 14, 2019, etc.). According to the appraiser C’s appraisal results and the results of the examination conducted by appraiser C in the first instance trial, the instant accident occurred due to flusium generated in the process of manufacturing and installing the instant parking facility, and such flusium is not likely to occur due to excessive power failure in the process of using the instant parking facility, but its power is difficult to the extent that the entire flusium collapses. There is no trace that the entire flusium collapsed in the instant parking facility.

According to the results of each fact-finding conducted by FF and the Director of the Strategic Planning Agency of the Korea Traffic Safety Authority, the horizontal state was confirmed at the time of the completion inspection of the parking facility in this case, and the completion permission is not granted if a serious frame is discovered.