1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. From June 28, 2018 to July 3, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff had the Defendant keep the BMW 728i vehicle (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) owned by the Plaintiff while entrusting the Defendant with repair, and due to the Defendant’s breach of the Defendant’s duty of care and duty of care in repair or custody, the instant vehicle caused a flood breakdown due to rainwater entering the instant vehicle, and thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages incurred therefrom.

2. Determination

A. The evidence presented by the Plaintiff on the assertion of breach of duty of care is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant has caused flooding inside the instant vehicle in breach of any duty of care in the course of repairing the instant vehicle, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, according to the overall purport of Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, and 8 (including each number), and the entire purport of the film and pleading, the vehicle of this case was released in 1996 and 211,143 km, and the vehicle of this case had been repaired to the defendant, and there had already occurred a power failure to prevent the drainage system due to foreign substances before being repaired to the defendant, and the rainwater has not been drained due to it, and only it appears that the eGS control tower oil (electronic control tower part) inside the right side of the front side of the vehicle and the inside line of the front side of the vehicle have become broken.

B. As to the assertion of breach of the duty of care in custody, the Plaintiff asserted this part of the claim on the premise that the Defendant had a duty of care to take measures, such as storing the vehicle in question in order to prevent any malfunction caused by rain while keeping the vehicle in custody. There was a separate request from the Plaintiff.

Unless the circumstances, etc. are recognized, it is sufficient for the Defendant to keep the instant vehicle according to the ordinary vehicle storage method, and it is also deemed that the Defendant knew or could have known that the internal drainage tool of the instant vehicle was installed as a foreign substance.