1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into a D insurance contract with the Daejeon Seo-gu Daejeon U.S.C. as the subject matter of insurance.

B. On March 9, 2018, around 21:51, the Defendant’s electric transmission lines installed around B, which were owned and managed by the Defendant, at least three times (hereinafter “instant electric transmission lines”).

C. Upon receiving a claim from B for insurance money on the ground that “An accident caused by the routers installed in the outdoor water tank in B (hereinafter “the routers”) due to the routture of the routers (hereinafter “the instant routers damage”) caused the instant accident, the Plaintiff paid KRW 27,977,914 equivalent to the cost of replacing the routers to B on November 1, 2018.”

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The accident of this case occurred due to the malfunction of the power transmission line owned and managed by the Plaintiff, since the abnormal voltage was opened on the wind supplied to the changer of this case, and the damage of this case occurred. Thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff damages equivalent to the above insurance money by paying the insurance money equivalent to the damage incurred to the changer of this case and acquiring the right to claim damages against the Defendant B in accordance with the insurer subrogation doctrine.

B. The rupture of the Defendant could not be heated due to the rupture between the Defendant and the rupture of the instant accident, and there were no other abnormal ruptures in the surrounding areas. Therefore, there is no causation between the instant accident and the instant rupture, and therefore the Defendant is not liable

3. Determination

A. Therefore, above all, the issue is whether there is a causal relationship between the heatation of the instant power plant and the transformerr of this case. Accordingly, according to each of the evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 5, the E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) is examined.