1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On or around August 21, 2014, the Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into a fire insurance contract with a view to setting the facilities, equipment, fixtures, etc. kept in the third floor of the building located in the Daegu-gu Seo-gu B and in the mutual sports hall of “C” operated by A (hereinafter “instant sports hall”) and compensating for losses incurred to the said subject matter due to fire.

B. On February 3, 2010, the Defendant is a company incorporated for the purpose of manufacturing and selling a wind flag, etc.

C. On July 4, 2015, around 02:10, a fire, at around 02:10, was caused by an internalation of the instant sports hall and a fire, such as a wind flag (a model name HVF-3000; hereinafter referred to as “instant wind flag”), a house, internal facility, part of a building, etc. inside the instant sports hall.

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

As a result of the appraisal of the weather of the instant vessel collected at the scene of a fire, the National Institute of Scientific Investigation concluded that the instant fire “it may be presumed that the fire was caused by electrical heat generated in the course of damage to the interruption of the power of the internal mother of the instant vessel.”

E. On August 11, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 47,414,743 as the insurance money to compensate for the damage caused by the instant fire.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Evidence Nos. 7 through 8, Evidence No. 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is the manufacturer of the wind of this case, on the premise that the fire of this case occurred due to manufacturing defects of the wind of this case. Thus, the defendant asserts that the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff who subrogated the victim for damages equivalent to KRW 47,414,743 of the insurance money to be paid in accordance with the principle of product liability.

As to this, the defendant asserts that there was no fact of manufacturing the wind of this case.

B. First of all, as to whether the Defendant manufactured the instant vessel’s wind.