1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 4,916,00 with the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from September 10, 2016 to May 24, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a contract for food and facility owner liability insurance with B. Defendant A is a person who operates a mutually cafeteria called “D” in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and Defendant Han Lan Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant insurance company”) is an insurer who entered into a contract for food and facility owner liability insurance with Defendant A.

B. At around 20:00 on September 10, 2015, B: (a) while drinking together with a meal in D, he was fluored on a portable gas siren (hereinafter “brush”) and was fluored on the part of a portable gas siren, he/she was fluoring the burner in his/her future and her future, and (b) E, outside the upper part, was fluord by a cresh between the upper part and the upper part, was fluord by a brush, and brud by a e, a fluor, etc.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On September 9, 2016, the Plaintiff paid 49,160,000 won for damages caused by the instant accident in subrogation of B.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident, along with the negligence of the Defendant A (hereinafter “Defendant employee”), led the customer not to move the burner in a case where the employee of the Defendant A (hereinafter “Defendant employee”) was under eating food, and the customer did not take safety measures, such as using a smell which is smaller in diameter than the burner, even if the customer was fluent, did not take a smell. In light of all the circumstances, the Defendant’s employee’s negligence should be recognized as 50% in light of all the circumstances.

Since the plaintiff suffered loss due to negligence of the defendant's employee, the defendant A, the employer, is liable for damages under Article 756 (1) of the Civil Act, and the defendant insurance company, the insurer of the defendant A, shall jointly compensate for the above loss.

B. Determinations in this case.