1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 26, 2012, the Green Damage Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “green Damage Insurance”) concluded a fire insurance contract for apartment organization (hereinafter referred to as “instant fire insurance”) between the council of occupants’ representatives of A apartment units (hereinafter referred to as the “council of occupants’ representatives”) and the owner of the insurance-purposes A apartment unit, and the head of the household of each apartment unit, and the insurance period between October 16, 2012 and October 16, 2013.

B. On November 22, 2012, a fire occurred in the toilet No. 110, 1904, and 1904 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) around November 23, 2012, and the toilets, toilets, living rooms, corridors, etc. of the instant apartment were destroyed or damaged.

(hereinafter “instant fire”). C.

On March 5, 2013, Green Damage Insurance paid KRW 57,372,470, total sum of KRW 3,502,217 to the council of occupants' representatives and KRW 60,874,687, based on the instant insurance contract.

On May 3, 2013, the Plaintiff subscribed to the insurance contract for green damage insurance in accordance with Article 14(2) of the Act on the Structural Improvement of the Financial Industry.

E. Defendant Cowa Cowa Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Defendant Cowawa”) manufactured the rain (hereinafter “the rain in this case”) that was installed in the toilet of the apartment in this case. Defendant Dongbu Fire Marine Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Dongbu Fire”) is an insurer who entered into a product liability insurance contract with Defendant Cowa.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 12 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion (1) The plaintiff asserts that since the fire of this case occurred due to the defect in the rain of this case manufactured by the defendant Kowawa, the defendant Kowa has the obligation to pay the amount equivalent to the insurance money paid by each plaintiff as the insurer of the defendant Kowawa, under the Product Liability Act.

(2) As to this, the Defendants are against this.