beta
Text
1. As to KRW 30,416,954 and KRW 28,039,223 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 30,416,954 from December 5, 2015, and KRW 2,377,731.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract with Nonparty B, the owner of 104 Dong-dong 501 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) in Jeonju-si, Jeonju-si, with the insurance period from December 17, 2013 to December 17, 2023. The instant apartment, etc. is the subject matter of insurance, and where property damage, etc. was incurred as an insured event, such as fire, etc., on the subject matter of insurance, the Plaintiff compensated for the damage.
(hereinafter “instant contract”). B.
On November 12, 2015, at around 07:16, a fire occurred in the living room in the apartment of this case, the apartment of this case was destroyed, damaged the household tools such as the electricity board (hereinafter referred to as “electric ground board”), and the fire damage occurred.
C. On December 4, 2015, in relation to the instant accident, the Plaintiff paid KRW 50,980,406, totaling KRW 26,070,148, and KRW 24,910,258 as the amount of damages to the instant apartment building to Nonparty C, the owner of the instant apartment building, as the amount of damages to the building, and KRW 24,980,40,000, and KRW 2,340,000 as the temporary dwelling expenses to Nonparty C on January 15, 2016.
The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a product liability insurance contract with the head of the Gu, Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Gu”).
[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Evidence No. 7-1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings]
2. The parties' assertion
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the fire of this case occurred due to the defect in the manufacturing of the electric design of this case manufactured by the head of the Gu, and the defendant, the insurer of the Gu, is liable to compensate B for the damage of this case in accordance with the Product Liability Act or the legal principles of tort liability under the Civil Act. Since the plaintiff paid the insurance money for the fire of this case, the plaintiff paid the insurance money to the defendant in accordance with the insurer subrogation doctrine