beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On May 25, 201, the Plaintiff is an insurer that entered into a comprehensive insurance contract for non-payment success (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with respect to D and its internal facilities, office fixtures, and inventory assets in the north-gu, Northern-si, the insurance period from May 25, 201 to May 25, 2021.
E operated F (hereinafter “instant frequency”) on the side of the above D building.
Defendant and G are children of E.
B. On January 15, 2012, at around 03:37, the fire presumed to have been caused by electric power leakage at the bottom of the lower left-hand wall of the instant frequency (hereinafter “instant fire”) was destroyed by E, which was locked from the second floor of the said frequency at the time, and the said D building was destroyed by the fire of the said D building and the household fixtures, etc. inside the said building were damaged.
C. On September 26, 2012, the Plaintiff paid insurance money of KRW 26,651,167 according to the instant insurance contract to B.
【In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s evidence 1, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 and 4, and 12, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. “Defects in the installation and preservation of a structure” under Article 758(1) of the Civil Act, which determine the cause of the claim, refer to the state in which a structure does not have safety ordinarily required according to its use. In determining whether such safety is satisfied, the determination shall be made based on whether the installer and custodian of the structure in question has fulfilled his/her duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the risk of the structure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da39548, Jan. 14, 200). According to the above factual relations, the fire in this case, as an occupant of the frequency of this case, failed to perform his/her duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required in proportion to the risk of the installation and maintenance of electric facilities in the frequency of this case.