beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.07.23 2019나51422

구상금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: ① After the 7th of the judgment of the court of first instance, “the ordinary appraisal procedures have not been followed” was added, ② “The results of the fact-finding by the court of the Daejeon Science Investigation Research Institute, which prepared the above appraisal report, are as follows: (a) the said research institute separately collects the electric wires, based on the judgment that the form of the cross-speaks identified in G at the time of the fire investigation of this case is clearly distinguishable from that of land; and (b) the Plaintiff’s assertion added to this court is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following paragraph (2). Therefore, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (in addition to the cause of the claim) asserts that the Plaintiff is liable to pay KRW 21,473,878, which is the insurance money for the building (F) out of the total insurance proceeds, due to the insurer’s subrogation provision under Article 682 of the Commercial Act, to the Plaintiff who acquired the H’s right pursuant to the insurer’s subrogation provision, unless the Defendant proves that the lessor’s obligation to return the leased object (G) to H was impossible due to the first outbreak of the fire in this case.

B. In order to recognize subrogation of an insurer under Article 682 of the Commercial Act, the damage is caused by an act of a third party (a tort or default), and as a result, the policyholder or the insured has the right to claim damages, etc. against the third party.

However, the Plaintiff’s assertion in this part as a third party’s act is “the Defendant’s breach of the duty to preserve G stores under a lease agreement with the H,” and the insurance damage seeking compensation is “F store’s loss”, and G store’s loss.