beta
Text
1. Defendant C’s KRW 6,413,045 as well as 5% per annum from May 13, 2016 to June 14, 2019.
Reasons
1. Chief;
A. As a company running non-life insurance business, the Plaintiff concluded a damage compensation insurance contract for the G building located in Non-party E and Daegu Jung-gu, the products and half-finished products in the above building, office fixtures, internal facilities, and the restaurant business as follows.
(a) Insurance types: H2) Securities number: I) policyholders and the insured: E4: Buildings (25 million won), goods and semi-finished goods (92 million won), office fixtures (10 million won), and internal facilities (2.5 million won);
B. On January 24, 2016, around 02:57, the occurrence of a fire accident occurred in the G cafeteria located adjacent to K in Jung-gu, Daegu (hereinafter “instant cafeteria”) and spreaded to seven stores with a densely concentrated length. The fire, such as the above buildings, facilities, office fixtures, and equipment owned by the above E, was destroyed or damaged by the fire (hereinafter “the fire”).
C. According to the results of the investigation by the authorities concerned which caused the instant fire, the instant fire was generated in the instant restaurant operated by the Defendant and expanded flames, etc. around the left, right, right, and right, etc., and the specialty of electric spug melting, which is found in the instant restaurant, is found in the state of discovery of the peculiar points of electric spug melting, which is related to the spuging of fire in the instant restaurant and the Contact Sea. Thus, it is presumed that the instant
On May 12, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 19,101,394 for the building, KRW 1,981,00 for movable property, KRW 10,000 for the house, KRW 750,00 for the house, KRW 750,00 for the facility, and KRW 453,024 for the store shutdown damage.
E. The fire accident of this case, as to the existence of liability for damages, occurred due to the mistake that Defendant C, who is using or managing the instant restaurant, did not safely manage plugs and contact sets, which are facilities in the restaurant, and thus Defendant C is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the said E in accordance with the responsibility of the possessor of the structure, etc. under Article 758 of the Civil Act.