1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 35,064,264 with respect to the Plaintiff, and 5% per annum from July 16, 2015 to April 19, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. At around 18:00 on December 24, 2014, the Defendants, who had been a smoke, went into the toilet at around 338 prooneone hotel 512, as Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, for approximately 100 candlelights on the floor, table, etc., and turned into the toilet.

As candlelight remaining after the death was moved to a small wave, the fire occurred, and the guest room and the house equipment in this area were destroyed.

B. The Plaintiff concluded an insurance contract with a professional Lone Star, a corporation operating a hotel, to compensate for losses caused by the hotel building and fixtures, etc., and paid insurance proceeds of KRW 35,064,264 to the professional Lone Star in order to compensate for losses caused by fire on July 15, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap 1 through 7 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, defendant B's personal examination result, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In the event of the occurrence of the liability for reimbursement, the Defendants laid down a candlelight in the vicinity of the hotel room to the flelelelight, and caused the fire to move the candlelight to the guest room and the house fixtures, and caused the fire.

Therefore, as a joint tortfeasor based on negligence, the defendants should compensate all damages caused by fire.

Since the Plaintiff paid insurance money to the professional Lone Star, the victim, to compensate for the loss as an insurer with respect to the hotel, the Plaintiff acquired the claim for damages against the Defendants of the professional Lone Star equivalent to the amount in accordance with the principle of subrogation by insurers.

B. Whether the scope of the amount of indemnity is set-off by negligence: the illegal Defendants asserted that the amount of compensation by the Defendants should be reduced in consideration of the negligence on the part of the hotel as well as the negligence on the part of the hotel, inasmuch as the sprinkers installed in the guest room at the time of fire did not function at the time.

However, according to Gap evidence No. 6, the alarm against fire.