beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 68,614,207 with respect to the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from April 6, 2012 to December 18, 2015.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On October 25, 2010, the Plaintiff concluded a comprehensive insurance contract with Nonparty B and the insured subject matter C (hereinafter “instant factory”) and with C’s inventory assets, the insurance period from October 25, 201 to October 25, 201. The insurance proceeds amounting to KRW 51 million, movable assets such as inventory assets, etc., KRW 20 million, and KRW 300 million for fire liability. In the event that the subject matter of the insurance suffers loss due to fire, etc., or damage to another’s property due to fire, the Plaintiff entered into a comprehensive insurance contract with non-distribution property (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).
B. Defendant Samsung Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Samsung Fire”) and Defendant Samsung Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. concluded a contract to compensate for damage to others during their daily lives.
C. On October 20, 2011, a fire (hereinafter “the fire in this case”) occurred in the factory in this case, and the factory in this case and inventory assets were entirely transferred to Nonparty B. Under the insurance contract in this case, the Plaintiff paid 63,194,681 won (on February 24, 2012, KRW 30,917,800, KRW 32,276,881, and KRW 22,573,078 in relation to the burning portion of the nearby factory in which Nonparty B is liable (on April 5, 2012, KRW 17,108,50, KRW 508, KRW 54,546,581 in relation to the fire in the nearby factory in this case) to Nonparty B.
[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant fire was caused by Defendant A, and thus, Defendant Samsung Fire, the liability insurer of Defendant A and Defendant A, is jointly liable for damages incurred to Defendant Samsung Fire, and the Plaintiff subrogatedly acquired the Plaintiff’s right in accordance with the insurer’s subrogation doctrine. As such, the Defendants were jointly liable.