1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation part.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to B ASEAN A7 vehicles owned by A (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded a liability insurance for daily life with C as the insured.

A, around 08:00 on July 26, 2015, parked the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the Plaintiff’s ground parking lot D in Gangseo-si, Gangnam-si. However, C, while carrying out red painting work at the above parking lot (hereinafter “instant housing”) and was buried on the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 6,000,000 of the insurance money at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the above paint color.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the amount stated in the claim in accordance with Article 682 of the Commercial Act.

B. On July 26, 2015, the gist of the Defendant’s assertion C did not engage in a red painting work in the instant house, and only engaged in the process of waterproofing from the stairs of the second floor of the instant house on June 28, 2015, in a transparent painting work.

Between June 28, 2015 and July 26, 2015, asserting that C actually engaged in paint work suffered damage, there exists a interval of one month between the two months, and since the paint actually used is different from the allegations of the Plaintiff, it cannot be deemed that the damage of the Plaintiff’s assertion was caused by C’s paint work.

Therefore, since the damage of the plaintiff's assertion was caused by other causes, the plaintiff's claim cannot be complied with.

2. The respective descriptions and images of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, 7, and 8 are insufficient to recognize the fact that C, around July 26, 2015, had engaged in red painting in the instant house, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion, which is premised on the above date, time, and place C engaged in red painting work, is without merit without any need to examine further.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff.