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

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

A. (1) On August 21, 2014, the Plaintiff is the third-story sports hall (trade name: C; hereinafter “instant sports hall”) of the three-story of the commercial building located in Seodaemun-gu, Daegu, the subject matter of insurance between A and A on August 21, 2014.

(ii) An insurance company which has concluded an insurance contract with the insurance period from August 21, 2014 to August 21, 2019, for the purpose of manufacturing and selling of facilities, aggregate equipment, insurance coverage amounting to KRW 150 million ( KRW 120 million in a building, KRW 20 million in a facility, KRW 20 million in a house, KRW 10 million in a house, and KRW 10 million in a house), and the insurance period. (ii) The Defendant is a company established for the purpose of manufacturing and selling a ship wind, etc. on February 3, 2010.

B. On July 4, 2015, the occurrence of a fire accident and the payment of insurance proceeds are as follows: (a) the wind of the instant sports hall that occurred inside the instant sports hall; (b) the model name HVF-3000; (c) the wind of the instant vessel (hereinafter “instant wind”).

(2) As a result of the appraisal of the instant wind apparatus collected at the scene of a fire, the National Institute of Scientific Investigation concluded that the instant fire “it may be presumed that the fire was caused by electrical heat generated in the process of damaging the smoke of the inside racks of the instant wind apparatus.”

3) On August 11, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 47,414,743 to A with the insurance proceeds from the instant fire. [In the absence of any dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap’s evidence 1 through 5, and evidence 7 through 10, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion is a manufacturer of the wind of this case, or a person who succeeded to the status of the manufacturer of the wind of this case from Newnam Co., Ltd. as the manufacturer of the wind of this case.

Since the fire of this case occurred due to the manufacturing defect of the wind apparatus of this case, the defendant is liable for damages to the victim A as the manufacturer, and the plaintiff, who is the insurer subrogated the damage claim of A pursuant to Article 682 of the Commercial Act, is liable for the compensation equivalent to the insurance money paid to A.

(b)the cause of the claim;