1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is subject to Paragraph (1).

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to B automobiles owned by A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a company that manages D’D’ parking spaces, which are mechanical parking lots located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Gangdong-gu (hereinafter “instant parking lot”).

On December 22, 2016, around 22:19, the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the instant parking site for parking, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was destroyed by the Plaintiff’s roof side (hereinafter “instant accident”).

On January 19, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 6,180,000 to the Plaintiff’s automobile repair cost according to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 5, Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 5, the plaintiff asserted that the accident of this case occurred due to defects in the parking site of this case. Thus, the defendant, who is the managing body of the parking site of this case, shall be liable for damages pursuant to Article 758 (1) of the Civil Act, which provides for the responsibility of the possessor of the structure.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's vehicle is not damaged due to the defect in the parking lot of this case, and denies his liability for damages.

Judgment

The term “defect in the installation or preservation of a structure” under Article 758(1) of the Civil Act refers to a state in which a structure fails to meet the safety requirements ordinarily required for its use. In determining whether such safety requirements are met, it shall be determined on the basis of whether the installer or the keeper of the structure has fulfilled the duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the risk of the structure.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da61615, Feb. 11, 2010). A’s entry of evidence No. 7, and each video of evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 8, reveal the overall purport of the pleadings.