The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant, as a possessor of the dormitory of this case, failed to perform the duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the risk of the facility, and thereby, the defect in the installation and preservation of the structure under

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on defects in the establishment and preservation, which are elements for establishing

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, determined that the part concerning the instant fire insurance contract was concluded on behalf of the Defendant who is the owner B, and that the insured was the owner of the instant machinery and movable property, and it is reasonable to deem that the insured was B, since the part concerning the instant machinery and movable property was concluded on behalf of the owner B. Thus, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff, who paid the instant insurance money to B pursuant to the fire insurance contract, acquired the claim for damages against the Defendant within the scope of the instant insurance money by subrogation of the insurer under Article 682 of the

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on the scope of third parties who are the subject of subrogation by the insurer under Article 6

3. Examining the record in light of the third ground of appeal, the court below rejected the Defendant’s allegation to reduce the amount of damages under the Act on the Defendant’s Liability for Fire Caused by the instant fire, deeming that the damage caused by the instant machinery and movable property owned by B constitutes a direct fire, not a burning.