1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On May 2, 2014, at around 21:13, 2014, the fire occurred in the instant fire and cooling machine “C” building located in Ansan-si B, a restaurant located in A, and on the outer wall of the restaurant, the fact that the Defendant was equipped with a water tank cooling system manufactured and sold, does not conflict between the parties, or is recognized in accordance with the entry in Gap evidence No. 4.

2. As asserted by the Plaintiff, the Defendant liable for damages with respect to the instant fire under the Product Liability Act is obligated to pay 47,518,676 won equivalent to the insurance money paid to the Plaintiff.

The Defendant is liable to compensate for the fire of this case pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Product Liability Act.

In other words, the fire extinguishing point of this case is the inside of the cooling machine of this case, and its cause is presumed to be a floor fall between floors or other electrical causes based on the heating of the cooling machine, etc.

The Defendant cannot be exempted from liability for damages under the Product Liability Act unless the Defendant proves that the instant fire was not based on the manufacturing defect or design defect of the coolant of the instant case.

In addition, since there was no warning or warning indication related to fire due to electrical causes, etc. in the cooling season of this case, the defect in indication is also recognized.

On July 28, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 47,050,344 as the insurer who concluded the fire insurance contract with A as the insured.

In addition, on August 29, 2014, the Plaintiff paid insurance money of KRW 468,332 to Samsung Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd.

This is the result that the Samsung Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. paid insurance money to the neighboring restaurant operator D who suffered damage from the instant fire, and claims for indemnity against the Plaintiff.

3. According to the part of Gap evidence Nos. 9 and Eul evidence Nos. 2, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the Ministry of Information and Communication did not find any electrical cause such as the shotde in the instant cooling machine, etc.

There is a possibility of the fall between floors at the inside of the mother.