Criminal

Parking Damage Claim Dismissed on Appeal – Successful Defense Case

Appeal Dismissed

사건 개요

Client Information: Individual / Suspect

Case Details: Decent Law Firm’s Civil Litigation Team represented a corporate client that had been sued for damages arising from a vehicle damage incident in a parking facility. Following a favorable judgment at the trial level, we successfully secured a dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim again at the appellate stage.

The plaintiff alleged that after parking in a mechanical parking system, parts of the vehicle—including the trunk—were found damaged. Based on this, the plaintiff claimed approximately KRW 15 million in damages, asserting that our client was the operator and manager of the parking facility.

However, our client was merely a service provider supplying on-site personnel. The actual authority and responsibility for operating and managing the parking facility rested with a separate asset management company.

Despite this, the plaintiff attempted to impose liability on our client based solely on superficial factors such as payment terminals and receipts issued under our client’s name.

디센트 전략

✔️ Establishing the True Operating Entity
We structured and presented evidence demonstrating that our client was limited to manpower supply and had no substantive control over the parking facility.

This included a detailed analysis of:

• Reporting lines and command structure of on-site personnel
• Responsibility for maintenance and repair of parking equipment
• Incident reporting procedures
• Allocation and ownership of parking fee revenues

We also obtained an official response from the relevant district office confirming that our client was neither the registered operator nor the legally recognized parking facility manager under Korean law. This served as a key piece of evidence.

✔️ Legal Argument on Liability Requirements
We argued that the application of liability under the Parking Lot Act requires prior recognition of the defendant as the actual “parking facility manager.”

In addition, under Korean civil law, tort liability requires proof of a specific breach of duty and a causal link between the conduct and the damage—both of which must be established by the plaintiff.

We effectively rebutted the plaintiff’s reliance on superficial indicators, emphasizing that such external appearances cannot substitute for actual control or legal responsibility.

✔️ Consistent Appellate Strategy
We maintained the legal framework and arguments that led to success at the trial level, while proactively addressing new claims raised by the plaintiff during the appeal.

By integrating factual evidence with clear legal reasoning, we ensured a consistent and persuasive defense throughout the appellate proceedings.

결과 및 의의

"Appeal Dismissed“

The appellate court dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal in full.

The court found that:

Our client merely supplied personnel under a contract with the asset management company
There was no evidence to support that our client qualified as a “parking facility manager” under applicable law
The role of our client’s personnel was limited to mechanical operation during vehicle entry and exit
There was no sufficient basis to establish intent or negligence in relation to the vehicle damage

As a result, the plaintiff’s claim was entirely rejected.

In parking-related damage claims, liability is often broadly asserted against multiple parties involved in the facility. However, legal responsibility ultimately depends on who holds actual control and management authority.

Superficial indicators—such as the name on a receipt or payment terminal—are not sufficient to establish liability. A structured legal analysis of operational control and responsibility is essential.

If your company is facing a similar claim, early-stage strategic response and proper evidentiary structuring can significantly affect the outcome.