구상금
1. Defendant B and C jointly share to the Plaintiff, and KRW 29,498,217, as well as KRW 21,080,905 as from November 30, 2016.
1. Basic facts are insurance companies that concluded two insurance contracts with the purport that the Plaintiff compensates for fire damage arising in relation to the buildings, facilities, and office fixtures of the Suwon-gu E building (hereinafter “instant building”) as shown in the attached list of insurance contracts (the term “first contract” and “second contract” as indicated in paragraph (1) above, and the term “each insurance contract” as indicated in paragraph (2). In total, the Plaintiff concluded two insurance contracts.
On November 2, 2016, Defendant B and C had installed soundproof walls on the instant building at a parkingta near the instant building. However, during the melting work, a fire was caused by shot leaves around the flame and waste sprinking the instant building, which led to the loss of the facilities, etc. of the instant building.
(hereinafter “the instant fire”). The insured under the instant contract suffered damages of KRW 42,140,310 in total, including KRW 39,834,310 in relation to the instant facility, and KRW 2,306,00 in temporary closure, and the insured under the instant contract suffered damages of KRW 30,115,579 in relation to the facility.
On November 29, 2016, the Plaintiff paid insurance money of KRW 42,140,310 to the insured under the first contract, and paid KRW 30,115,579 to the insured under the second contract on February 13, 2017.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-5, 9-16 evidence (where there are numbers in the documentary evidence, the indication is omitted; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul 2 evidence or video, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The summary of the cause of the claim lies in the negligence that did not take safety measures to prevent fire even though Defendant B and C had a melting fire or waste to be sprinked out, while sprinking around the fire. Defendant D neglected the supervision and supervision of the construction performed by the said Defendants while he was responsible for the direction and supervision of the construction performed by the said Defendants. As a result, the said Defendants performed the contact work without taking safety measures to prevent fire.
As such, the instant fire is against the Defendants.