1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 12, 2013, the Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive insurance contract for the DNA apartment complex (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with the council of occupants’ representatives of the insured A apartment units and the council of occupants’ representatives from June 20, 2013 to June 20, 2014, to compensate for losses, such as fire, wind water, aircraft risks, electric risks, etc., arising from the part of the exclusive ownership of the Seo-gu apartment complex A (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

B. On July 23, 2013, around 23:30, the above A apartment house 113 Dong 503 B (hereinafter “the instant apartment house”) prevented foreign substances from being contaminated with the double-fixed day and distribution board of the common pipes located in the main kitchen balcony located inside the main kitchen, and there was a flood damage from the instant apartment floor up to the maximum of 20cm on the instant apartment floor.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). Accordingly, not only the instant apartment that B resides in, but also the same apartment that C resides in, is suffering from the damage set forth in subparagraph 403 of the same Article.

C. On January 29, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,080,00 to C, and KRW 37,370,000 to B, respectively, according to the instant insurance contract.

It is called Defendant Kather Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Kather”).

On June 20, 2012, B and B entered into an unmanned security contract with respect to the apartment of this case, and Defendant Dong-dong Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Dong-dong Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd.”).

) The insurer is an insurer which has entered into an insurance contract for business liability with Defendant Kel. [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, and each entry in Gap evidence 1 through Gap evidence 6 (including paper numbers, the purport of the whole pleadings).

2. The plaintiff's assertion B entered into a contract with the defendant KV with an unmanned security with a view to the accident of this case, which occurred with the defendant KV, and when the main blocking of the power distribution team of the apartment of this case is lowered as the accident of this case, there was a duty of care to promptly confirm whether the apartment of this case was static and contact with the customer B.