1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff against Defendant C Co., Ltd., which falls under the following amount.

1. The reasoning for this part of the facts admitted by the court is that "126,684,433 won" in the fifth fourth sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance is "163,042,231 won". The fiveth sentence of the judgment of first instance is followed by the fifth sentence below, and the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of first instance is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for addition of the fifth clause as follows.

[Supplementary Parts] In the above case (Seoul Central District Court 2017Gahap501431), the Seoul Central District Court held on May 16, 2018 that “the defendants jointly have the obligation to pay D the total amount of damages (126,684,43 won) of the leased object of this case subtracting KRW 47,802,261 won paid by the plaintiff pursuant to the fire insurance contract of this case from the total damages (126,684,43 won) of the leased object of this case, and the defendants did not limit their liability on the grounds of comparative negligence, etc.

On January 17, 2019, the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2018Na2038421) held that "the defendants jointly have a duty to pay to D the total amount of damages (163,042,231 won) of the leased object of this case less KRW 47,802,261 won paid by the plaintiff pursuant to the fire insurance contract of this case, and 115,239,970 won and damages for delay." The appellate court, like the first instance court, did not limit the defendants' liability on the grounds of comparative negligence, etc.

On April 9, 2020, the Supreme Court dismissed Defendant C’s appeal.

(Supreme Court Decision 2019Da210956). 2. The reason why this Court stated in this part of the claim against Defendant B is that part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Claim against Defendant C

A. In a case where the fire insurance purchased by the lessee of a building for the purpose of insurance (hereinafter “Lessee’s fire insurance”) and the fire insurance purchased by the owner of the building for the purpose of insurance (hereinafter “owner’s fire insurance”) are in a double insurance relationship with the owner of the building as the insured, the fire is in a leased building due to the lessee’s liability.