1. Plaintiff A, Defendant Music Damage Insurance Co., Ltd., 18,855,380 won, and Defendant G Co., Ltd., Defendant Music Damage Insurance.

1. Basic facts

A. At around 05:46 on December 29, 2012, Defendant G driven an I New FD car and driven a three-lane road in front of the K Hospital located in the Daegu-gu, Seogu, Seo-gu, the central line was obstructed and the Plaintiff’s clothes (the trade name “L”; hereinafter “instant workplace”) operated by the Plaintiff Company A on the opposite side of the road was damaged or damaged by the accident (hereinafter “instant accident”).

B. Meanwhile, after the instant accident, around December 29, 2012, Defendant H entrusted restoration work at the instant place of business operated by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant construction work”) from Defendant Meritorious Damage Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”) to implement the construction work from December 29, 2012 to January 15, 2013, Defendant H contaminated or damaged clothes, etc. in the instant place of business due to the occurrence of dust during the construction work.

C. The Defendant Company is an insurance company that entered into an automobile insurance contract (unlimited special agreement) with Defendant G M, and the Plaintiff B is the husband of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff C is the Plaintiff’s children’s children, the Plaintiff D’s children’s children, the Plaintiff E, and F are the parents of Plaintiff A.

[Ground of Recognition] A’s without dispute, Gap’s evidence 1-2, Gap’s evidence 2, Gap’s evidence 4, Gap’s evidence 7, Gap’s evidence 1-1 through 11, Gap’s evidence 12-1 through 10, Gap’s evidence 13-1 through 8, Gap’s evidence 14-1 through 14-8, the plaintiff’s result of the plaintiff’s on-site examination, the result of this court’s on-site inspection, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiffs asserted that due to the accident of this case and the construction of this case, they suffered property damage caused by the damage to the clothes, etc. in the business place of this case operated by the plaintiff A, and due to its shock, the plaintiff A suffered mental damage due to its natural heritage, etc., and thus, the defendant company is the insurer of defendant G and the user of defendant H as the insurer of defendant H. 64.