beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant A loses the amount exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except in the following cases, thereby citing it as is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
2. Parts to be dried;
(a) The judgment of the court of first instance is d;
On September 15, 2013, the Plaintiff paid C KRW 57,676,602, totaling KRW 42,676,602 (II) on October 11, 2013, with insurance money for the instant fire.
The above insurance proceeds were calculated by adding up KRW 23,60,916 for the building, KRW 7,049,804 for the total amount of damages and KRW 27,025,882 for the facilities, as indicated below, and KRW 27,025,882 for the total amount of damages for the house fixtures and KRW 39,482,869 for the facilities.
The insurance amount divided into KRW 102,615,840 won 23,600,916 won 1,600,000 won 23,60,916 won 18,600,916 won 73,046,400 won 39,482,869 won 10,000 won 2,000,000 won 17,025,882 won 2,000,000 won 17,025,882 won 70,000 won 46,472,954 won 7,049,80,000 won 27,8049,804 won 27,8049,005 won 10,007,6305 won 10,606,705 won 206,705 won
B. From the 5th judgment of the first instance court to the 6th judgment on the assertion of Defendant A, the part of the “judgment on the assertion by Defendant A” (1) alleged in the part of the “judgment on the assertion of Defendant A” is due to the structural defect of electric facilities inside and outside the facility installed by Defendant B, the owner of the Defendant restaurant, in light of the following: (a) the sponsor (which appears to mean the coolant of the fire of this case) was not used by the Defendant A, and thus cannot be a fire source; (b) the first reporter witnessing that the electric line of the external seal electricity was set, and (c) the loss of the sponsor installed on the outer wall is serious.
Therefore, Defendant A is not liable for damages to the fire of this case.
(2) However, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence No. 6, one of the two metrifiers indicated in the annexed building placement map by defendant A.