beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against Defendant Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. is revoked, and the aforementioned revoked part is revoked.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. A entered into an insurance contract with the Plaintiff on May 23, 2008 to May 23, 2018, with the insurance coverage amounting to KRW 140,000,000 on the part of the building, and KRW 26,000,000 on the part of the household household (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with the owner of the instant building located in B’s detached house (hereinafter “instant building”). The Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract with the content that the Plaintiff would compensate for losses caused by fire on the said subject matter (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).
B. At around 21:00 on December 4, 2016, A’s spouse: (a) installed gas bomb (hereinafter “instant gas bomb”) on the floor adjacent to the living room wall of the instant building and installed and used the gas bomb gas (hereinafter “instant secondary gas”); (b) on the gas bomb, a part of the living room wall of the instant building was destroyed by explosion along with explosion, and damage was caused by cracks on the living room window and the outer wall of the building, etc. (hereinafter “the instant fire”).
C. On February 13, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 21,307,068 to A with insurance proceeds from the instant fire.
At the time of the occurrence of the instant fire, Tyna Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “Tyna”) concluded a contract for respective gas accidents liability insurance with Defendant KB Insurance, and the detailed draft Co.,, Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “Syan”) concluded the respective
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3 through 9, evidence 10-1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant fire was caused by the defect of the gas exhauster, which led to the Plaintiff’s failure to properly install the butane gas container in the gas exhauster. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant fire was caused by the defect of the butane gas of this case was not affected by the increased internal pressure of the container.