2. B

3. C

4. D;

2. A metts fire and marine insurance company;

All of Defendant F’s appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal between the Plaintiffs and Defendant F are assessed against Defendant F.

1. As to the third ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that there was a defect in the installation or preservation of a structure in the office and each warehouse within the building of this case possessed by Defendant F, and that the defect contributed to the occurrence or expansion of the fire of this case.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is acceptable, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on defects in the installation or preservation of structures, etc., which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. The legal nature of the victim’s direct claim pursuant to Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act is that the insurer concurrently takes over the insured’s liability for damages against the insured’s victim, and the victim is the right to claim damages against the insurer and the insured’s right to claim damages against the insurer. However, the insurer’s liability for damages arising from the direct claim of the victim is premised on an insurance contract, and is recognized within the insurer’s limit of liability pursuant to an insurance contract. Therefore, if the insurance clause provides for the insurer’s deduction of the amount of self-payment from the insurance amount payable by the insurer, the insurer is obligated to pay the victim directly with regard to the amount obtained by deducting the amount of self-payment from the amount of damages (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da

B. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following facts.

1) On February 2013, Defendant F entered into the instant insurance contract with Defendant Matz fire and marine insurance (hereinafter “Defendant Matz fire”). The instant contract contains a special clause on fire liability guarantees.

2) According to Article 3 of the Special Terms and Conditions on Fire-Fighting Liability Guarantee, Defendant Matz Fire is liable to compensate for damages sustained by Defendant F’s loss due to damage to the victim’s property due to fire caused by the goods insured by Defendant F, according to the above Additional Terms and Conditions. According to Article 4-21 of the above Terms and Conditions, Defendant Matz Fire is liable to compensate for the above damages within the insurance coverage amount (the maximum amount of compensation) stated in the insurance policy (proof certificate) with respect to the above damages. However, each accident exceeds the amount of the insurance coverage (the amount of deduction stated in the insurance policy). Accordingly, Defendant F’s self-payment amount is KRW 10 million, and the maximum amount of compensation is KRW 300 million.

C. Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, Defendant Matz Fire, the insurer of the instant insurance contract, is obligated to pay damages directly to the Plaintiffs, who directly exercise the victim’s right to claim reimbursement under Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act, regarding the amount obtained by deducting KRW 100 million from the amount of damages.

At the first instance court and the lower court explicitly asserted that the coverage of fire liability insurance among the instant insurance contracts is KRW 300 million compensation after the policyholder’s self-payment deduction of KRW 100 million. Nevertheless, without any particular determination, the lower court ordered the Defendant Matz fire to pay the entire amount of damages recognized by the lower court, jointly with Defendant F.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of the victim's direct right and the terms and conditions of the deduction of self-charges, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal by Defendant Matz fire, the part of the lower judgment against Defendant Matz fire is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. All appeals by Defendant F are dismissed, and the costs of appeal between the Plaintiffs and Defendant F are assessed against Defendant F. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-il

Chief Justice Lee Dong-won

Justices Park Il-san