2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was a fire from the 5th floor of the BB and the building located in Chungcheongnambuk-do, on December 4, 2014, due to the heat of boiler due to the defect of boiler manufactured by the Defendant, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 45,306,550 of the insurance money to the insured C. As such, the Plaintiff sought the amount equivalent to the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant upon subrogation of the insurer and compensation for the delay thereof.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the instant fire occurred is not caused by the boiler’s defect but by the oil tank, etc., and the Defendant is not liable for the occurrence of fire.

2. In order to be recognized as a fire due to a defect in boiler manufactured by the Defendant, it should be recognized that the boiler itself was the fire.

Therefore, this paper examines whether the fire fighting point of this case is inside the boiler or outside the boiler.

However, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the fire fighting point of this case is the boiler itself, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

오히려 갑 제3호증의 영상 및 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 이 사건 화재가 발생된 보일러실은 외부와는 방화문으로 차단되어 있고 보일러실 내부는 보일러가 있는 부분과 기름탱크가 있는 부분이 높이 약 1m정도의 격벽으로 나누어져 있는 사실, 화재 직후 보일러 후면(보일러 외부로 보일러 뒷편을 의미한다)에서 누유된 흔적이 관찰된 사실, 보일러실의 방화문이 화재에 따른 폭발에 의하여 튕겨져 나온 사실, 보일러를 구성하고 있는 보일러 전면부의 문짝 내부에서는 열 등에 의한 소손현상이 거의 관찰되지 아니하는 반면 문짝 외부에서는 열에 의한 백화현상 등 소손현상이 심하게 나타나는 사실, 보일러 내부의 버너나 플라스틱 재질의 컨트롤러 등 부품들에 열적...