구상금
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked.
2. The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation part.
1. Basic facts
A. On October 15, 2014, the Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an insurance contract for free distribution and fire compensation with the intent to compensate for damage if a fire occurs in the facilities of the damaged stores, etc. in Ansan-si, the insurance period of which is from October 15, 2014 to October 15, 2029 with respect to the Dice Golf Course (hereinafter “instant damaged stores”) located in Ansan-si, the 5th 5th 5th 501, Ansan-si (hereinafter “instant damaged stores”); and the Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into the insurance contract for free distribution and fire compensation with the insured as B.
B. The Defendant is a person who operated a used vehicle trading center in the name of “F” by leasing Nos. 1018 and 1021 (the sum of the above Nos. 1018 and 1021) of the first floor of the instant building from E and one other.
C. On February 22, 2016, around 19:03, a fire occurred inside the ceiling of the part No. 1021 among the instant stores leased by the Defendant, and the fire was expanded as a result of falling on the floor (hereinafter “the instant fire”), and the inside facilities, etc. of the instant damaged stores were damaged due to the fire.
The Plaintiff calculated the amount of damages at KRW 5,700,000 due to the instant fire, and paid KRW 5,700,000 insurance money to B on April 12, 2016.
[Based on Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 7 (the same as Eul evidence 3), Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 7-1, Eul evidence 7-2 (the evidence Nos. 4, 7, and Eul evidence 3 shall include each video), Eul evidence 8 video, Eul evidence 8's whole purport of pleading,
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion did not clearly reveal the cause of the instant fire. However, in light of the construction work, it cannot be deemed that the instant fire occurred regardless of the part of the construction work performed by the Defendant, and the Defendant’s above lighting facility.