구상금
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The relationship between the parties 1) The Plaintiff is a single-story E (hereinafter “instant housing”) located in the instant case where the Plaintiff is close with D.
) The F insurance contract with the facilities attached thereto and the equipment thereof as the subject matter of insurance (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).
(2) Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) is a security business entity that entered into a security service agreement with his husband G to provide crime prevention services and emergency notification services regarding the instant housing (hereinafter “instant security service agreement”).
The term "crime prevention service" means the service for the early detection of theft and the prevention of the expansion of theft damage for the guarded objects, and the term "emergency notification service" means the service for the customer to receive the emergency notification server and notify the police thereof when he/she takes charge of it.
(Article 5 and Article 9.3 of Part II of the Terms and Conditions) Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”).
(B) On January 5, 2016, the Defendant B entered into a business liability insurance contract with Defendant B. Around January 17:45, 2016, a fire that could not identify the cause of the instant house’s living room (hereinafter “instant fire”) and sent signals to the Defendant B’s unmanned security system.
2) According to the security service provision agreement of this case, if Defendant B received abnormal signals, it is deemed that the situation is actual after immediately sending out the dispatch staff and checking the situation (Article 6(2)3 of Part II of the Terms and Conditions). Defendant B’s dispatch staff, at around 18:16 of the same day, did not have any special situation except that it appears that he or she arrived at the house of this case and carried out an external inspection, but he or she could not find out the special situation. At the time of entering into the security service contract of this case, even though he or she attempted to confirm the inside of the house using the key that G was left at the time of entering into the security service contract of this case, he or she could not enter the current locking device with the change of the locking device.