beta
서울중앙지방법원 2019.07.17 2018나82658

구상금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid respectively.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the insurer who entered into the fire damage insurance contract with D as to the Gunposi E (hereinafter “instant building”) owned by D with D, and Defendant B is a person who, under the trade name of “F” on the second floor of the instant building leased from D, the two floors of the instant building (hereinafter “instant store”); Defendant C Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”) entered into a fire liability insurance contract with Defendant B to compensate for fire liability to be borne by Defendant B against the third party within the limit of one billion won.

B. On June 30, 2017, around 20:15, fire damage was inflicted on the wall surface, etc. of the instant store and the outer wall of the instant building, etc., following the occurrence of an unidentified fire from among the frying sprinks installed adjacent to the outer entrance of the instant store (hereinafter “frying”).

(hereinafter “the instant fire accident”). C.

The Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 9 million on August 7, 2017 and KRW 11,220,000 on August 22, 2017, respectively, to D as compensation for damages caused by the instant fire accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, 13, 14 (including branch numbers for those with numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1, and the fact inquiry reply to the military chief of the fire station and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The instant fire accident occurred and expanded due to the defect in the installation and preservation of the protruding spons installed and used by Defendant B, and thus, Defendant B is liable to compensate for damage in accordance with the structure liability under Article 758 of the Civil Act to D, the owner of the instant building, or due to the negligence that Defendant B neglected to manage the protruding spare, and thus, Defendant B is liable to compensate for damage due to the tort under Article 750 of the Civil Act to Defendant B, the lessee, or Defendant B, the lessee.