The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 11, 2019, around 00:30, a part of a house was destroyed by fire on the second floor of a commercial building located in Seo-gu, Daegu-gu D, Seoul-gu, causing damage.

(hereinafter “instant fire”). B.

With respect to the cause of fire, the National Institute of Scientific Investigation determined that the cause of fire was caused by the electrical factors inside the medicinal sugar connected to the container inside the said house (the “red red ginseng manufacture,” hereinafter).

C. The Plaintiff, who entered into the F Contract with the said housing owner E, calculated the amount of damages incurred by the instant fire as KRW 34,678,656, and paid KRW 34,678,656 in total, to E on June 26 through June 27, 2019.

[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 5, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion is the manufacturer of the sugar of this case, and the defendant is responsible for compensating for damages caused by the fire of this case pursuant to Article 3 of the Product Liability Act and Article 750 of the Civil Act. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay insurance money to the plaintiff to whom the damage claim was transferred.

B. The fact that the chemical substance of this case consists of lids from the main body and lids, E purchased only the lids from the Defendant, and the fact that the main body of the sugar purchased from another person is not a dispute between the parties.

Since the fire in this case occurred due to electrical factors inside the sugar machine, it is reasonable to view the cause of the fire as the secondary factors such as the issue of the main body of the sugar or the connection of the container, etc.

The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone alone is insufficient to recognize that there is a defect in the lid lid, and that it was the cause of the instant fire.

Therefore, the defendant is the manufacturer of the main body of the sugar of this case (or under the premise that a fire has occurred due to the defect of lids from the main body of the sugar of this case).