1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

The fact of finding the cause of the claim is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with A and B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant vehicle”). The Defendant is an insurer who has entered into a fire liability insurance contract with F and the Defendant, with respect to the general restaurant “D” (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) located in Jeonnam-gun, Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

A On November 2, 2013, around 02:50 to 03:00, driving the instant vehicle and parked in front of the instant restaurant.

At the time, E, who operated the above restaurant, has stored studane in front of the restaurant, but there was an accident where approximately one minute of flusium remains after the parking was completed, and the considerable part of the above vehicle was destroyed by fire (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”) from the above flusium to the rear wheels of the instant vehicle.

On December 12, 2013, the Plaintiff, as an insurer, paid KRW 25,560,000 as insurance money to A to the extent that it does not exceed the damages caused by the instant accident.

[Based on recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 6 through 8 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings, E running the restaurant of this case is obliged to prevent fire caused by smoke gas in the bits of smoke, after confirming that the fire of smoke gas was completely cut out, in the event the smoke gas used in the restaurant is inevitably laid on the road.

However, according to the statements and images of Gap evidence 3 through 6, E recognizes that he neglected the above duty of care and he was he stored one studio studio on the road side where the fire completely does not take place, and the accident in this case seems to have occurred due to the violation of the duty of care in this case.

Therefore, E is responsible for compensating for damages to A and is the insurer of E, except in special circumstances.