beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 42,079,455 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from May 28, 2015 to December 28, 2016, and December 29, 2016.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Defendant caused damage to D by putting fire to the C building located in Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City B three times as follows and destroying its building and fixtures, etc.
1) On March 25, 2015, around 02:20, at a hotel’s 5th floor, a 4-5 flick flick was attached to the equipment room with a string of 4-5 flicks in the equipment room located in the stairs display stand. 2) On April 4, 2015, around 20:05, around 20:05, a 8th floor of a hotel, a blick flick flicks and flick flicks from the guest room on the 7th floor to the 7th floor with a string 6-7 flick flicks. However, the flick flick was taken by hotel employees, etc.
3) On April 20, 2015, around 02:50, a hotel was entered in the same manner as a hotel 701, 7:50, and a fire was attached to a scam match, and the scam was spreaded to the entire guest room by putting the scams on the 4 to 5 scams inscams. B. The Plaintiff paid KRW 42,079,455 of the insurance money to D on May 27, 2015, as an insurer who entered into a fire marine insurance contract with D, which is a hotel owner, with D.
2. The judgment of the Defendant, as an intentional tortfeasor, should compensate D, the hotel owner, for the damages caused by the fire, and the Plaintiff paid D insurance money to D in order to compensate for the damages as the insurer, thereby acquiring the right to claim damages against D in accordance with the insurer’s subrogation doctrine.
Therefore, the Defendant ought to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 42,079,455, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from May 28, 2015 to December 28, 2016, which was served by the instant complaint from May 28, 2015, the day following the payment date of insurance proceeds, and 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from December 29, 2016 to the day of full payment.
3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is legitimate, and it is so decided as per Disposition.