Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Jeong Jong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Yellow-tae et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

September 24, 2013

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2011Da438275 Decided January 9, 2013

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 26,476,405 and the amount calculated by each ratio of KRW 5% per annum from March 22, 2011 to May 23, 2012, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the first instance against the Defendants shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation shall be dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is that the Seoul Gwanak Police Station which has investigated the fire of this case from 3.2 of the judgment of the court of first instance to 6.0 "............................... there are no special features to see that the fire of this case was emitted and spread at outside the bottom of the drinking water cooling house installed on the right side of the store of this case (hereinafter "the cooling house of this case.............................................., during the process of the plaintiff's inspection of the damage of this case from 6th of the judgment of the court of first instance to 1st of the judgment, the plaintiff's request for the 6th of the judgment of this case was made to 4th of the judgment of the court below to see it from 6th of the judgment of this case to 2nd of the high air cooling, etc.

2. The part to be mard;

① According to the evidence evidence evidence No. 3, the insured is not liable for damages to a person who has a legitimate right to the property (including all forms of substantial control regardless of the cause) because the contractor or the insured (the insured) suffers from the loss of the property owned, occupied, leased, used, protected, managed, or controlled (Article 4 (1) 10 of the Terms and Conditions of Insurance No. 1-11, which provides that the insured shall not compensate for the damages to a person who has a legitimate right to the property (Article 4 (1) 10 of the Terms and Conditions of Insurance No. 1-11, which provides that this exemption clause shall be granted in relation to the damage arising from the property in this case, the insured is the victim of the property at the same time as the offender of the property and the duty to compensate for the damage, and the insurance interest that should have been reduced considerably due to confusion, and the insured's possession or management of the property in this case cannot be viewed as an "the insured's possession or management of the property in this case to the extent that it would cause an excessive danger of the insured's possession or management or exemption.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, and all appeals by the defendants are dismissed.

Judges Kim Il-tae (Presiding Judge)