1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

The scope of this Court's adjudication at the first instance court, based on the intentional or negligent act committed by E, F, and G, the Plaintiff asserted the employer's liability pursuant to Article 756 of the Defendant's Civil Code, and claimed damages. The first instance court deemed that the act committed by F and G was not constituted. However, the Plaintiff partly accepted the Defendant's claim by recognizing E's gross negligence.

As to this, the defendant, among the judgment of the court of first instance, appealed only to the part where part of the defendant's claim for damages based on the defendant's employer's liability was accepted, and the plaintiff did not file an appeal. Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the above part of claim against the defendant recognized as the E

The reasoning of the judgment of this court cited in the judgment of the first instance is as follows, and the judgment of the court of first instance, emphasizing or adding the defendant in the trial, is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of the judgment as set forth in paragraph (2) below, thereby citing the summary of the judgment pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

Part 4 attached "No. 2015 Gahap562890 of this Court" was added to "Seoul Central District Court 2015 Gahap562890".

The testimony of the witness E in the 5th page 10 shall be taken into consideration as “the testimony of the witness E in the first instance trial.”

The summary of the Defendant’s assertion that the instant fire insurance contract was amended by the Plaintiff’s request, and the Plaintiff’s non-payment of the insurance money was due to the Plaintiff’s decision-making or negligence on the Plaintiff’s side. Therefore, it is unreasonable to seek damages

(1) (1) E is an independent business operator independent of the Defendant or D, and thus does not constitute an employee, and thus, the Defendant does not assume an employer’s liability (2). Even if the Defendant is recognized as an employer’s liability, the Plaintiff was previously concluded.