1. The Defendant’s KRW 31,643,158 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from February 1, 2016 to November 29, 2017, and the following.

1. Occurrence of liability for payment of insurance proceeds;

A. 1) B is a general restaurant in the name of D from the first floor of the building located in Gangnam-si C (hereinafter “Defendant shop”).

A) The Plaintiff is operating a building adjacent to the Defendant’s building (hereinafter referred to as “adjacent building”).

) On the second floor, the Plaintiff is operating a general beauty business and a skin management business in the name of E (hereinafter “Defendant shop”).

(2) On January 31, 2016, the Plaintiff suffered damages from the transfer of fire to the Plaintiff’s store by attaching the air panty electric panty wire, etc. to the combustible materials, such as electric wires, and rapidly expanding the burning by high oil time, etc.

3) The Defendant is an insurer that has concluded an insurance contract that covers the liability of a facility owner manager between B and B. [The grounds for recognition: evidence No. 1, A2, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 4-1 through 6, Eul evidence No. 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the above facts acknowledged, the fire of this case was caused by the defect in the ventilation facility around the Defendant shop. As such, B is the possessor of the Defendant shop, who is liable for damages caused by the accident of this case. The Defendant is the insurer who concluded the insurance contract with B, and is jointly and severally liable for damages to B and the Plaintiff with the insurance money.

2. Scope of liability;

A. The Plaintiff’s claim 1) passive damages: 8,301,744 won (2) affirmative damages: 120,189,320 won (2).

Judgment

The facts that the plaintiff's passive damage was 1,070,100 won and active damage was 30,573,058 do not dispute this.

We examine whether the Plaintiff suffered damages in excess of the above money.

According to the evidence evidence No. 27, the Plaintiff reported KRW 3,070,003 as global income, and KRW 4,031,975 as global income, and otherwise, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff suffered passive damages exceeding the amount the Defendant was the Defendant due to the instant fire.

Gap evidence 4, .