1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff concluded a comprehensive property insurance contract with non-permanent corporation (hereinafter “non-permanent”) as follows.

Securities Number: 50313000239 policyholders/insured: Cheongcheon-dong 422-1 Insurance Period in Bupyeong-gu, Incheon: June 26, 2013 to June 26, 2014

The Defendant manufactured and supplied the low voltage circuit (hereinafter referred to as the “second voltage circuit”) to non-faculptors.

C. On February 25, 2014, at around 16:47, a fire was generated in a non-defined transformation room for the rooftop of the building (hereinafter “instant fire”) and the buildings, machinery, and inventory assets owned by a non-definite were destroyed. D.

On October 15, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 214,279,466 of the insurance proceeds from the instant fire to non-fashion.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 8, purport of whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the fire of this case occurred due to the interruption of the period supplied by the Defendant, and there was a defect not equipped with the objective nature and performance that could have been expected in light of the transaction norms. As such, the Defendant is liable for compensating for the damages to the non-fashion in accordance with the Product Liability Act, and the Plaintiff acquired the damage claim against the Defendant of non-fashion by paying the insurance money to the non-fashion, and thus, the Defendant should pay KRW 214,279,466 to the Plaintiff.

3. 판단 앞서 든 증거와 갑 제9 내지 12호증의 각 기재 및 이 법원의 한국전기안전공사, 인천부평소방서에 대한 각 문서송부촉탁 결과에 의하면, 이 사건 화재를 목격한 A은 “비에이치 건물 옥상에 설치된 수변전실에서 2~3회 ‘뻥’ 소리가 난 후 이 사건 기중차단기 내부에서 연기가 발생하여 전원 차단기를 차단하였다”고 진술한 사실, 이 사건 화재 이후 한국전기안전공사와 인천부평소방서는 이 사건 화재의 발생원인에 관하여 "배전반 내...