1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurance company that entered into an insurance contract with F that operates the Ek Center in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

On July 1, 2016, the Defendant entered into a security contract (hereinafter “instant security contract”) with F and F to provide the said car center with the crime prevention service.

B. On August 2, 2017, a fire occurred in the part of the HRa Engine’s engine that was put into the said car center.

(hereinafter “instant fire”). At the time the Car Center did not have a worker.

From 19:09:14, when the Defendant installed, intrusion signal was cut off, and from 19:09:28, it was turned out to the engine part of the radar vehicle to the extent that it can be confirmed by CCTV images.

At around 19:12, the outside person's report of 119 fire was received to a fire station that the inspection was conducted in the car center building, and that the inside path was conducted. Accordingly, the fire brigade arrived at the scene at around 19:16 and fighting work was completed at around 19:23, and completed the first diagnosis at around 19:30.

The defendant's employee arrived at the site around 19:45, after the extinguishment.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8 evidence (if any, the statement is omitted), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to Article 8 of the Security Services Industry Act and Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Security Services Industry Act, a security business entity engaged in mechanical guard service must arrive at the site within 25 minutes from the receipt of a warning. Employees belonging to the Defendant did not immediately take any measures due to breach of the legal or contractual duty despite the receipt of a signal at the time of the instant fire at around 19:09, while the fire at the time of the instant fire, and arrived at the site at around 19:45, the subsequent fire was all destroyed.

The damage has been spread from the first point of origin due to the defendant's breach of duty of care, and the ratio of the defendant's negligence to the total damage is at least 40%.