1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. According to the record as to the legitimacy of the appeal for subsequent completion, the court of first instance rendered a favorable judgment against the defendant on July 17, 2013 after serving a copy of the complaint and the notice of the date of pleading by public notice, and proceeding the pleading on July 17, 2013. The original copy of the judgment also served on the defendant by public notice. The defendant becomes aware of the fact that the judgment of the first instance court was rendered only on April 8, 2015, and filed the appeal for subsequent completion on April 22, 2015. Thus, the defendant was unable to observe the period of appeal due to a cause not attributable to him, and filed an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks from the date on which the cause ceases to exist. Thus, the appeal for subsequent completion of appeal of this case is lawful.

2. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with B with respect to the high-priced motor vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a person in charge of the operation and management of the off-road parking lot, which is an off-road parking lot in Seoul Jung-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant parking lot”).

B. A around 14:10 on October 24, 2010, around 14:10, Party B parked the Plaintiff’s vehicle normally in the instant parking lot, and there was an accident where the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the identity failure was concealed and escaped (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On November 4, 2010, the Plaintiff paid KRW 350,000 as insurance money for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of whole pleadings

3. The assertion and judgment

A. In light of the determination as to the cause of the claim, Article 17(3) of the Parking Lot Act provides, “An off-road parking lot manager shall not be exempt from liability for damages caused by the loss of or damage to a motor vehicle except where he/she proves that he/she has not been negligent in performing his/her duty of care as a good manager with respect to the custody of a motor vehicle parked in the parking lot.”