1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit, the costs of appraisal shall be borne by the Plaintiff and the Defendant respectively.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is an enterprise that performs the interior works of spawn A and Busan local stores, etc.

B opened and operated D points around April 201 in Busan Shipping Daegu C, 102.

From March 5, 2011 to April 5, 2011, the Defendant installed a hot spring water protection, etc. in the kitchen while performing the interior works of the above D points.

B. On April 1, 2011, the Plaintiff is an insurer that entered into a comprehensive insurance contract for non-distribution of the insured workers B and the insurance period from April 1, 201 to April 1, 2016 (hereinafter “instant insurance”).

The insurance of this case included a special agreement to compensate the owner of the above building and facilities within KRW 500 million.

C. On November 30, 2012, water leakage occurred as hot water tanks installed at the kitchen scambling rooms in the instant store on November 30, 2012, and as a result, accidents, such as the indoor scam golf course of the instant building, and the indoor scambling facilities of the said building occurred.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). D.

On December 18, 2012, the Plaintiff paid KRW 28,167,40,00 to the victim who suffered flooded damage as the insurer, respectively, for the total amount of KRW 3,60,000 on December 28, 2012, and KRW 14,567,40 on January 16, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements or images, Gap's statements or images, Gap's evidence (if any, including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap's statements or images, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. On the other hand, the Plaintiff asserted that, inasmuch as the Plaintiff caused the accident of this case by negligence that the Defendant, who did not have the safety and durability of the above D points, and the Plaintiff, the insurer, paid the insurance money to the victim, the Plaintiff may exercise the claim for damages that B has against the Defendant in accordance with the insurer’s subrogation’s legal doctrine.

The above evidence is examined, as well as the above evidence.