1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 21, 2018, the Defendant entered into a sales contract with C on June 21, 2018 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with a content that sells the sales price of KRW 535 million to the second class neighborhood living facilities (manufacturing facility) of the second class neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “instant building”) on the first floor of the Do general steel structure, Busan Metropolitan City, which is owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

B. C completed the registration of ownership transfer of the instant building on July 6, 2018, and the Plaintiff transferred the instant building to C around that time.

C. On July 13, 2018, the Plaintiff, an insurance company running non-life insurance business, entered into an insurance contract with C, which provides that the purchase price of the instant building shall be KRW 140 million and the insurance period shall be from July 13, 2018 to July 16:00 to July 13, 2019 (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

On August 1, 2018, a fire (hereinafter “instant fire”) occurred in a toilet located on the right side of the material or warehouse of the instant building at around 18:00, and some of the warehouse outer walls and facilities were destroyed.

E. On September 20, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 108,172,264 of the insurance proceeds to C via self-damage adjustment.

[Ground of recognition] Items A 1 through 3, 6, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the fire of this case occurred due to electrical defects that occurred in the toilet of the building of this case, and the leakage circuit breaker was not lowered at the time of combustion, and thus, the Defendant is the seller who sold the building of this case to C, and is liable to warranty liability under Article 580 of the Civil

In addition, the defendant, as a seller of the building of this case, has a duty of due care as a good manager to deliver the building of this case to the state without any defects under the contract of this case, but has not performed a regular inspection of electrical facilities under the Electric Utility Act, and the fire of this case has been delivered to C.