1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the costs incurred by participation.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive insurance contract with Nonparty C for non-party D and 1st floor building (hereinafter “instant building”) and with respect to the facilities, equipment, and office fixtures of the instant building, to compensate for the damage if a fire occurs.

B. C leased the instant building from Nonparty E to operate the restaurant, and around 01:05 on February 16, 2013, a fire (hereinafter “first fire”) occurred on the instant building.

C. On February 18, 2013, with respect to the instant building, a fire restoration and remodelling was conducted on or around February 18, 2013, and on the same day, “the instant fire” (hereinafter referred to as “the instant fire”).

(D) The instant building and the facilities, fixtures, etc. inside the instant building were destroyed by fire. D. The Plaintiff paid KRW 138,314,989 to C on June 12, 2013 in accordance with the said insurance contract, as damages from the fire of the facilities and equipment inside the instant building, and paid KRW 16,468,993 as damages from the fire of the instant building to Nonparty E, the owner of the instant building, on June 26, 2013. [Judgment 16,468,93 did not have any dispute over the grounds for recognition, each of the statements, and the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole.]

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s allegation that the fire in this case occurred as a matter of electric power distribution, etc. of the caters used by the Defendant Intervenor B (hereinafter “the Intervenor”) for the Doing construction (the organization used for drinking water).

In the first place, Nonparty C entered into a contract with the Defendant for the construction work for the restoration of damage caused by the first place fire. Since the auxiliary intervenor, who is the Defendant or the Defendant’s implementing assistant, caused the instant fire by the erroneous management and use of the scoo, the Defendant is liable to compensate C for the damage caused by nonperformance.

Preliminaryly, the defendant is a person who occupies and manages the above cater, and is due to the fire of this case in accordance with Article 758 of the Civil Code.