A. Defendant C’s KRW 92,278,718 as well as 5% per annum from May 16, 2019 to April 1, 2020.

A. On November 27, 2018, the Plaintiff is an insurer that entered into an insurance contract (hereinafter referred to as “instant insurance contract”) with regard to the Bupyeong-si E building and the 7th floor F (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) by determining the insurance coverage amount from November 27, 2018 to November 16, 200 to November 27, 2019; the insurance coverage amounting to KRW 1,850,000,000; the fire damage subject to security; the liability of the owner of facilities; etc. (hereinafter referred to as “instant insurance contract”).

B. Around January 4, 2019, D entered into a contract with Defendant B, who is engaged in the business of selling and installing home appliances, to install air conditioners (air conditioners) in KRW 50,050,000 in the instant building (hereinafter “instant installation contract”).

C. Defendant B, who was in charge of the melting work during the heating and cooling equipment installation, was in charge of the Defendant C, and the fire was caused by being adhered to the surrounding combustible materials on February 21, 2019, while Defendant C being in charge of the melting work. Accordingly, the inside of the instant building was destroyed and the occurrence of the accident occurred (hereinafter “instant accident”).

H According to the damage assessment report prepared by H Co., Ltd., the total amount of damages incurred to the instant building is KRW 131,826,740 (cost 119,842,491, and cost 19,095,223). The Plaintiff paid KRW 131,826,740 to D as insurance proceeds around May 15, 2019.

【Defendant B’s ground for recognition: In the absence of dispute, each entry in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings against Defendant C: Service by public notice (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred as a person who caused the instant accident, and is liable for damages against D, and Defendant B neglected his/her duty to direct and supervise Defendant C as an employer of Defendant C, despite the existence of such duty. As such, the instant accident occurred, pursuant to Article 750 of the Civil Act and Article 756 of the Civil Act against D.