1. The Defendant’s KRW 96,138,178 with respect to the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from November 23, 2013 to November 3, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 2, 2012, the Plaintiff concluded a fire insurance contract between January 31, 2012 and January 31, 2015 with respect to the building and machinery located in Gwangju City, which is operated by B, respectively, as to the purchase price of the insurance, KRW 100 million in the building, and KRW 100 million in the machinery (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

B. The Defendant is a person who operated a factory under the trade name of “F (G)” in a factory located adjacent to the foregoing “D” (hereinafter “instant factory”).

C. On September 21, 2013, around 01:24, a fire occurred in the instant factory, and the instant factory was relocated, and accordingly, the “D” building located in the vicinity and the machinery, etc. inside the building was destroyed by fire.

(hereinafter “instant fire”). D.

As a result of the investigation conducted by the Gam Fire Service and the National Science Investigation Agency, it is presumed that a fire first occurred before the site of the factory of this case was located in the open site and the factory of this case adjacent thereto was burned to the open site and the factory of this case. However, as to the cause of combustion, the police concluded that the cause of combustion was "unexpliciated", and the police terminated the internal investigation on the ground that it did not find suspicion points about the fire of this case.

E. On November 22, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 192,276,357 to B totaling the insurance proceeds from a fire under the instant insurance contract.

[Ground of Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 17, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff alleged by the parties concerned is liable to compensate for damages caused by the tort under Article 750 of the Civil Act and Article 758(1) of the Civil Act, since the fire occurred due to negligence in the factory of this case, although the defendant has to perform his duty to take protective measures required by social norms to prevent the occurrence of a fire while operating the factory of this case.