beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 8, Gap evidence 9, Gap evidence 10-1, 2, Eul evidence 5-2, Eul evidence 5-1, 5-2, and Eul evidence 3, and the purport of Gap evidence 3 as a whole.
The plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of non-life insurance business.
Belgium The Defendant owned and occupied a factory (hereinafter “Defendant factory”) listed in the attached Table on the ground of 23,139 square meters of land for Pyeongtaek-si, Sejong-dong, 536-8, 239 square meters of land for factory as a corporation engaged in the manufacture, processing, sale, etc. of polytye coal
As seen below, the Defendant’s factory was partially destroyed due to the instant fire and the alteration registration of the details of the building was completed on May 13, 2016.
Article 538-3 [Road Name-si, Sejong-dong, 68-22 (Scongdong, 68-22 (Scongdong)] adjacent to the defendant factory as a corporation engaging in the business of manufacturing plastic film products (hereinafter “non-party corporation”) operates the second factory (hereinafter “Plaintiff factory”).
B. The Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract with the Nonparty Company as to the Plaintiff Company’s First and Three Factories from October 29, 201 to October 29, 2015, with the insurance period of the Plaintiff Company’s First and Three Factories from October 29, 2014; KRW 15,411,00,000 ( KRW 15,300,000 in the first sector; KRW 11,00,000 in the second sector); the first sector’s property risk and physical damage liability; the second sector’s machinery risk and physical damage liability; the third sector’s suspension of business and the fourth sector’s liability for damages (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).
C. A fire (i) around 01:50 on August 21, 2015, at the part where the Defendant factory is located (hereinafter “instant fire”) and the factory, warehouse, etc. was removed.
Dor. The fire of this case was immediately adjacent to the Defendant’s factory.