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

A. On April 2010, the Defendant implemented a structural change project to replace one engines owned by the said Company with the former engine between Pakistan, Inc. and the latter.

B. On June 10, 2015, the fire on the ground of the cause was destroyed by the fire to the said scke.

C. The Plaintiff was an insurance company that entered into an insurance contract with the above company (general type) for fire damage compensation (general type), and paid KRW 55,49,679 to the above company the insurance amount due to the above fire.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 3 (including branch numbers in case of additional number) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant is liable for nonperformance since an emergency machine was installed to prevent approval for structural change, and thus, the Defendant should be held liable for tort as he/she illegally performed illegal structural change due to intention or negligence.

The plaintiff, as an insurer subrogation under Article 682 of the Commercial Act, seek the payment of the insurance amount and delay damages paid by the plaintiff to the defendant.

3. The Plaintiff asserted the Defendant’s non-performance liability or tort liability in relation to a fire, so this court examined both the Plaintiff’s assertion and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff to prove it until the closing of argument.

However, as seen earlier, the fire occurred more than 5 years and 2 months since the Defendant implemented the structural change of the structure of the excavating season. However, it does not seem that the fire occurred on the part where the Defendant performed the structural change, and there is no objective data to deem that there was a fire due to a mistake of the words of the part where the structural change occurred due to the fault of the Defendant.

In reference, fire is likely to be considered to have occurred from the wing wing wing Drier, which is not directly related to the structural change part.

In addition, the Defendant’s structural change operation at the time of its structural change is erroneous.