beta
Text
1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the Plaintiff’s claim extended by this court, is modified as follows.
Reasons
Facts of recognition
The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into a fire insurance contract with the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “F”) and with respect to the building, machinery, inventory assets, and facilities on the G-based G-based G-based G-based G-based G-based G-based G-based G (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff factory”). Defendant B is an insurer who entered into a fire insurance contract with the Defendant Company C (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Company”).
On March 6, 2016, around 23:23:23, a fire occurred on the part of the simplified warehouse of the defendant factory located between the plaintiff factory and the defendant factory (hereinafter “the fire of this case”). As a result, the plaintiff factory and the machinery, inventory assets, facilities, etc. in the plaintiff factory were destroyed by fire.
The correct cause of the instant fire was not revealed.
The amount of damages and insurance damages incurred to F due to the instant fire is KRW 66,760,96 of the Plaintiff’s factory building; KRW 79,173,760 of the machinery; KRW 84,480,172 of the inventory assets (gold mold); KRW 217,046,338 of the inventory assets; KRW 37,231,338 of the facilities; and KRW 484,692,604 of the Plaintiff’s factory building.
The Plaintiff paid F totaling KRW 345,258,060,000,00 on August 10, 2016, and KRW 40,00,000 on October 14, 2016, and KRW 205,258,060 on November 16, 2016, with the insurance proceeds of the instant fire.
(On the other hand, Defendant B, as the owner and occupant, did not have any dispute over the insurance money for the damage to the Plaintiff’s factory building owner (which directly pays the Plaintiff’s building owner). (The ground for recognition), written evidence Nos. 1 through 8, A14, 23, and 24, and written evidence Nos. 14, 23, and 24, and the purport of the pleading as to the whole purport of the argument, Defendant B asserted that Defendant B did not have any facilities to prevent the spread of fire or burning while illegally expanding and using the Defendant’s factory. Therefore, Defendant B, as the owner and occupant, did not have any adjacent Plaintiff’s factory.