1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurance company that entered into a comprehensive insurance contract with C as to the building of “E” and its interior office, etc. between the Plaintiff and C, and the Defendant is a manufacturing company of waste and recycled products located adjacent to the E building.

B. On June 25, 2016, fire fighting occurred around 17:49, E and its interior fixtures, etc., and Defendant Company’s buildings were relocated.

C. The Plaintiff paid KRW 705,916,734, totaling KRW 300,000,000 on August 25, 2016, and KRW 405,916,734 on October 4, 2016, as insurance proceeds, to C as compensation for losses caused by the instant fire.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the fire in this case occurred due to the negligence that the defendant did not thoroughly manage the building for the prevention of fire, etc., or the defect in the installation and preservation of the facilities occupied by the defendant, and thus the defendant bears the responsibility under Article 750 or 758 of the

However, since the Plaintiff acquired the right to claim damages against the Defendant by subrogation pursuant to Article 682 of the Commercial Act by paying insurance proceeds to C, the Defendant is obligated to pay the said insurance proceeds to the Plaintiff and delay damages therefrom.

B. 1) Determination of whether liability for damages under Article 758 of the Civil Act is established or not refers to the state in which a structure fails to have safety ordinarily required for its use. In determining whether such safety is satisfied, determination of whether a person who installed and preserved the structure has fulfilled his/her duty to take protective measures to the extent that is generally required by social norms in proportion to the risk of the structure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da61615, Feb. 11, 2010). The burden of proving the existence of the defect is the burden of proof.