Part 4 and 5 of the judgment of the first instance shall be deleted.

(b) Nos. 4 and 8 of the first instance judgment shall be followed as follows.

“The instant lawsuit” (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant lawsuit”) between C and the Plaintiff.

ii)Chaul

(c)in accordance with the decision of the first instance court on the recommendation of compromise in Part 5, “in accordance with the decision of the recommendation of compromise in question, July 11, 2017” shall be added.

Part 5 of the fifth decision of the first instance shall add to the following:

"In the absence of dispute", "In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including each number), 14, 19, and 20, the purport of the whole pleadings"

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff is liable to pay the Plaintiff damages equivalent to the amount of the mutual aid money, since the Plaintiff acquired the claim for damages against the Defendant by subrogation pursuant to Article 682(1) of the Commercial Act by paying the mutual aid money for the damages incurred by the instant fire to C.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the damages incurred to C due to the instant fire were not proven, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim.

C. There is no dispute between the parties regarding the fact that the instant fire occurred due to the reasons attributable to the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant’s liability for damages is recognized. The key issue of the instant case is whether the amount of damages incurred to C is equivalent to KRW 87,486,050, as alleged by the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

(a) Evidence as set forth in the computation of the amount of damages, evidence as set forth in Gap’s 8 through 12, evidence as set forth in 15, evidence as set forth in 18, and evidence as set forth in Eul’s 22, and evidence as set forth in Gap’s 7;