beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 100,549,530 among the Plaintiff and KRW 83,828,928 among the Plaintiff, shall be KRW 16,720,602 from June 9, 2015.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive property insurance contract with D, the insurance period of which was three years from October 22, 2012, with the trade name of No. 601, Dong No. 1, 601 (hereinafter “instant commercial building”); and the Defendant is a general restaurant operator with the trade name of “E” in the instant commercial building No. 103 and 104.
B. On March 28, 2015, around 06:20, a fire (hereinafter “instant fire”) occurred in the instant commercial building, and the equipment and facilities inside the head office operated by the Plaintiff were destroyed.
C. The Plaintiff paid KRW 100,549,530,000, totaling KRW 16,720,602 on August 5, 2015, to D who suffered losses from the instant fire, following the assessment of the amount of damages.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion and judgment
A. (1) The Plaintiff’s fire of this case occurred within the water tank installed at the front of the Defendant’s frequency due to electrical factors, and the Defendant is liable to possess the structure pursuant to Article 758(1) of the Civil Act, and the Plaintiff paid the insurance money to D due to the instant fire. As such, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the amount equivalent to the above insurance money pursuant to Article 682 of the Commercial Act.
(2) The cause of the instant fire was not revealed, and the Defendant fulfilled its duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms.
B. (1) Determination of the legal principle refers to a defect in the installation or preservation of a structure under Article 758(1) of the Civil Act refers to a state in which the structure fails to meet the safety ordinarily required for its use.
Whether the installer or the keeper of the structure has fulfilled his duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the risk of the structure.