beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of this court in this part of basic facts is as follows, with the exception of adding "A evidence No. 9 and No. 15" to the part in the judgment of the court of first instance among the corresponding parts of the judgment of the court of first instance (No. 15 and No. 18 of the judgment of the court of first instance). Thus, this court shall accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
As the insurer of the instant vehicle, the Plaintiff handled the instant vehicle in relation to the instant fire accident, and paid insurance proceeds of KRW 3,059,000,000,000,000 after deducting the remaining value from September 28, 2017 to October 10, 2017, and paid insurance proceeds of KRW 2,274,240,00 from September 27, 2017 to July 17, 2018. The Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 1,234,80 in total with D medical expenses and agreed amount from September 6, 2018 to October 12, 2018.
2. The plaintiff asserts that since the fire of this case occurred due to the defendant's negligence, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the indemnity amount of 34,099,040 won (2,274,240 won) equivalent to the total amount of the insurance money paid to the plaintiff as a tort and the delay damages amount of 1,234,80 won (2,240 won).
(A) The Plaintiff filed a claim for the reimbursement of KRW 1,234,80 with respect to the insurance proceeds of KRW 1,234,80. The Defendant asserted that there was no negligence on the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant did not commit any negligence on the part of the Defendant, on the following grounds: (a) the instant fire occurred at the point of time when seven months have elapsed since it installed the auxiliary distribution on the instant vehicle; (b) the business replacement of D around May 2017, the possibility of the instant fire occurred; and (c) the G Service Center’s change of the auxiliary distribution system in order to look at the cause of the fire to another place.
3. The reasons for this Court in this part are as follows: (a) the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and (b) the third part of the evidence in the first short of the judgment.