beta
Text
1. The part against the plaintiff falling under the following order of payment among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked:
The defendant.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff concluded a housing fire insurance (hereinafter “instant fire insurance”) with the insurance period from December 31, 2013 to December 31, 2014, with Company A (hereinafter “A”) and the Gangseo-gu Busan apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and its affiliated facilities, household appliances as the subject matter of insurance, and the housing fire insurance (hereinafter “instant fire insurance”).
B. The instant fire insurance is a fire insurance that the owner of a special building under the Fire Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Fire Compensation Insurance Act”) requires compulsory subscription, and the insured is not separately specified in the insurance contract, and is stated in the “owner of the insurance policy” column as “A and B apartment household head.”
C. C is the owner of 603 units among the instant apartment units (hereinafter “603 units”). On February 19, 2014, Co., Ltd entered into a fire comprehensive mutual aid agreement with the Defendant to compensate for the damages incurred to another’s property due to a fire under 603 units of fire.
C On December 7, 2014, in order to charge a toy helicopters, the launched out of the Republic of Korea. As a result, a fire under 603 (hereinafter “instant fire”) occurred from the said helicopters, and due to the ppuri fire water, the flood damage (hereinafter “the instant accident”) occurred in the instant apartment units 503, 403, and 303 (hereinafter “each unit”) among the instant apartment units.
E. Until April 20, 2015, the Plaintiff referred to all victims of Nos. 503, 403, and 303 who suffered from the instant accident until April 20, 2015.
A) A total of KRW 21,012,297 paid insurance proceeds to the Defendant. On the other hand, the Defendant paid KRW 1,138,000 to the victim who suffered damages due to the instant accident. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s evidence 1 through 6, and Eul’s evidence 1 to 1.