구상금
1. The Defendant’s KRW 34,528,064 as well as 5% per annum from June 23, 2015 to September 27, 2016 to the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff entered into a fire insurance contract (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with respect to two units of the C factory building in Yangsan-si (hereinafter “instant factory”) and the entire interior machinery between the Plaintiff and B, setting the insurance period from November 13, 2014 to November 12, 2015 as the insurance period (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).
B. At around 16:40 on April 18, 2015, the Defendant was awarded a contract for the extension of the above factory at the instant factory (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”) and was engaged in the construction of a opening part on the outer wall of the aforementioned factory to connect the sn beam beam to the structure of the factory building. The fire, during the said work, was destroyed by the ecT machine learning center, etc. installed inside part of the said factory building and the ecT machine learning center, etc. installed inside the said factory building.
C. The Plaintiff paid KRW 101,196,562 insurance proceeds to B on June 23, 2015 under the instant insurance contract (i.e., KRW 6,656,00, KRW 96,924,917). The Plaintiff was reimbursed KRW 14,876,40 through the auction procedure for the said machinery, etc. remaining due to the instant fire.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through Gap 8-2, 4, 6, and Gap 9, Gap 8-3, and 5's purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the party's assertion
A. According to the facts of the first defendant's liability for damages as to the cause of the claim, since the defendant was engaged in a melting work near the opening part of the factory outer wall of this case, it was found that there was a place or material that can replace the surrounding areas, and thus, it was negligent in performing melting work with the duty of care to remove it in advance and prevent the occurrence of fire by being equipped with adequate fire extinguishing facilities and equipment such as adequate blocking prevention, and thus, the fire of this case occurred due to the negligence of performing melting work. Thus, Article 750 of the Civil Code is applicable.