beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The Defendant’s KRW 9,96,000 for the Plaintiff and its related costs from June 6, 2017 to November 2018.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to C newM3 vehicles (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff vehicle”). The Defendant is the insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the Eran vehicle owned by D (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
B. On April 7, 2017, around 16:45, the Plaintiff, who was parked in the said parking lot due to the instant fire, suffered damage to the forest by the vehicle, which was parked in the third floor parking lot of the Defendant’s vehicle underground (hereinafter “instant fire”).
C. As the insurer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle from April 17, 2017 to June 5, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 9,96,000 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The term “defect in the installation or preservation of a structure” under Article 758(1) of the Civil Act means that a structure is in a state of failing to meet normal safety requirements according to its use, and is not asked whether the defect was caused by the intention or negligence of the person liable for damages.
In determining whether such safety has been established, it shall be determined on the basis of whether the installer or the keeper of the structure has fulfilled his 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). We examine in light of the foregoing legal doctrine.
The following circumstances recognized as above, Gap evidence Nos. 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire arguments, i.e., the defendant vehicle, which is the first registered vehicle on September 23, 2005, seems to have been considerably deteriorated. ② The owner of the defendant vehicle, the owner of the defendant vehicle, is the defendant vehicle in the above parking lot around April 10:58, 2017, which is the date of the fire of this case.