1. The Defendant’s KRW 82,254,89 as well as 5% per annum from July 24, 2014 to September 7, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. A is a person operating a skin management unit with the trade names of heading 112, 113, and 114 of the Suwon-si B building 112, 113, and 114 (hereinafter “the skin management office of this case”). The Plaintiff entered into a fire insurance contract with A with regard to the skin management office of this case and its facilities, movables, etc., and the Defendant is a corporation that manufactured the brue heat machinery (the brue, the product of this case) installed in the skin management office of this case.

B. On February 5, 2014, around 18:10 on February 5, 2014, the skin management office of the instant case had two employees and one customer. A fire that appears to have been first generated from the instant product was burned to adjoining areas.

(hereinafter referred to as the “fire of this case”).

A, along with the damages caused by the fire of this case by fire, sustained damages from the fire of this case caused by the burning of equipment, facilities, etc. in the skin room. The Plaintiff, as the insurer of this case, paid KRW 164,509,79, the total amount equivalent to A’s insurance damages caused by the fire of this case between March 19, 2014 and July 23, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 7 evidence, Eul 1 to 5 evidence (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

(a)on the basis of liability (1) It is sufficient to prove in the consumer side that the accident occurred in an area exclusively controlled by the manufacturer unless the manufacturer proves otherwise that the accident occurred due to other causes, not the defect, in order to impose liability on the manufacturer on the manufacturer for the reason of the defect of the product where the accident occurred while the product was normally used, and that the accident does not normally occur without the negligence of any person;

Supreme Court Decision 2006No. 1006.