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

A. The Plaintiff is an insurance company that entered into a comprehensive insurance contract with C and Ansan-si members D and E-dong 2 F buildings (hereinafter referred to as the “instant buildings”) in relation to the interior, movable property, and facilities.

B. On December 4, 2017, around 02:05, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 114,074 to C by April 6, 2018, on the wind that a fire occurred in the instant building and the wind of the house, movable property, facilities, etc. inside the instant building caused damage.

[Ground for Recognition: No dispute between the parties]

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment thereon

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion No. 1 is presumed to have caused a fire from mechanical factors (heat) at the business managers inside the instant building, which were located in the water tank.

The above business entity was manufactured by the defendant, and the consumer used the above business entity normally in accordance with the directions of use, such as collecting the amount in the gold tank, and the competent fire station presumed that the amount of fire was overheated due to the malfunction of the temperature control device of the business entity, and the fire was presumed to have occurred, and the fire was presumed to have not occurred at the point of combustion other than the business entity, and the fire accident is presumed to have occurred due to the defect in the business of this case and the fire accident is presumed to have occurred.

Therefore, the defendant is obliged to compensate for damages caused by the fire of this case according to product liability and tort liability under the Civil Act.

B. The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit, since the statement of Gap evidence No. 5, which corresponds to the defendant's argument that the defendant manufactured the Silter, is not believed and there is no other evidence to prove it otherwise.

C. Even if the second argument by the Plaintiff did not manufacture the entire finished product and only manufactured the heat line, which is a part of the startter, the heat line is also part of the starter, and thus, is the subject of product liability.

The injured party's judgment on the product is a product due to a defect in the product.