beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.10.24 2019나27412

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. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a fire insurance contract with respect to the “E” UP store in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant store”) and its internal facilities and machinery

(Insurance Amount of 50,000,000, internal facilities of 40,000,000, machinery of 70,000,000) The Defendant is a person who performed interior works including electrical construction of the instant store.

B. On October 22, 2018, at around 16:00, a fire (hereinafter “instant fire”) occurred in the instant store, and the facilities, etc. were destroyed within the instant store and its store.

The reason for the fire of this case was that the fire of this case was presumed to be a fall by the rupture of the HIV line, which was connected to the rupture of the rupture of the rupture of the power distribution box.

C. On January 7, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 13,093,020,020, totaling KRW 12,303,775, as insurance money, to D for the restoration of the store in this case to its original state.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Defendant, while performing the electrical construction of the instant store, installed the electric facilities that lack safety and durability, and caused the instant fire, and thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate D for the damages caused by incomplete performance and the warranty liability.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 682(1) of the Commercial Act, the defendant is obligated to pay the amount of indemnity and damages for delay to the plaintiff who subrogated the right to claim damages of D.

B. It cannot be deemed that there was a defect that does not have ordinary safety in the electric installations of the building of this case, and since the exact point and the cause of combustion cannot be confirmed, it cannot be deemed that the fire of this case occurred due to the defendant's incomplete performance.

3. The evidence No. 1-2, No. 1-3, No. 1-2, and No. 1-3 is used prior to the occurrence of the liability for damages.