1. The Defendant’s KRW 63,08,007 as well as 5% per annum from December 28, 2018 to December 4, 2020, respectively, to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a factoring insurance contract with C (hereinafter “C”) regarding property, machinery, etc. owned by C, including comprehensive risk security.

B. On September 25, 2017, the Defendant entered into a service contract with C, setting the period from September 25, 2017 to November 30, 2017, with the content of a safety inspection of CO-GEN (PLT) electric installations located in a factory located in the opticalyang-si operated by C.

C. On November 5, 2017, the Defendant’s special pressure diagnosis team requested the head of the E-site team at which C was an employee of the E-site team to remove the seals of the heat cogeneration development team (22.9kv) in order to attempt the diagnosis test on the heat cogeneration development team of C factories (22.6kv).

E released a record at its request, and the F of the special pressure diagnosis team acted for a stop operation location. As a result, the power generation power plant (220.9kv) was transmitted to a power generator through a power generator team and a transformer (11kV), and the power generator was operated in a rapid manner at the same time as the power generator was operated, and the power generator was operated at the same time, and the power generator was operated by the GINB was operated by the power generator, and the power generator was broken out, and the power generator was damaged by the power generator (hereinafter “instant accident”).

E. The cost of repairing the power generator due to the instant accident is KRW 210,293,359, and the Plaintiff recognized KRW 210,000,000 as the repair cost, and paid KRW 160,000,000 after deducting KRW 50,000 from the deductible amount on December 27, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 13 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case occurred upon the defendant's employee's request for the cancellation of the attachment without properly verifying the facilities subject to inspection, and that the defendant is obligated to compensate for the damages suffered by C due to the non-performance of the duty of safety inspection. Thus, the plaintiff who subrogated C is obligated to pay the above insurance amount of KRW 160,000,000 to the plaintiff.

For this reason,