1. The Defendant’s KRW 157,765,486 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from June 11, 201 to August 20, 2013.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 10, 2010, the Plaintiff, as an insurer, concluded a fire insurance contract with the Postal Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the instant insurance contract”) with respect to two distributed accommodation facilities in the underground floor, the first floor, the second floor, the second floor, the third floor, the fourth floor, and the underground floor with respect to the building A in Busan Shipping Daegu (hereinafter “instant building”). From September 10, 201 to September 10, 201, the insured was newly constructed, the insurance period was set at KRW 5,725,400,000 (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

B. However, around 11:30 on October 1, 2010, a fire (hereinafter “the fire in this case”) occurred from the 4th floor of the instant building that was managed by the Defendant, which was caused by the phenomenon of spreading from the inside of the container with the multiple stamping to the two dynamics via the medium to the two dynamics, and the spke fire formed thereby caused the fire to be moved to the paper, etc. accumulated inside the waste separation yard located on the said 4th floor (hereinafter “the fire in this case”).

The fire, while carrying the outer wall of the building of this case, was set up on the rooftop of the building of this case, was moved to the household of the 38th floor, the central exterior wall of the building of this case, the building of this 38th floor, and the 35th floor, and destroyed part of the other 10 households.

C. On June 10, 201, according to the instant insurance contract, the Plaintiff paid KRW 262,942,477 insurance money corresponding to the damages incurred by the fire by part of the fourth floor, etc. of the instant building, which is the subject matter of insurance, to the Postal Construction.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5 (hereinafter referred to as "written evidence") and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant's existence and scope of liability

A. According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 5 and the whole pleadings, Eul had been appointed as the chief of the Defendant’s flag division from January 10, 2009 and was appointed as the fire safety manager around August 12, 2010. Since December 7, 2009, C had been serving as the Defendant’s living safety manager and supervised B’s performance of duties.