beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On December 28, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a fire insurance contract with B (hereinafter “B”) to the extent of the insurance amount if the subject matter of the insurance is destroyed by fire within the said insurance period (hereinafter “instant fire insurance contract”). On December 28, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a fire insurance contract with B: 16:00 to December 28, 2007; 16:00 to December 16: 28, 2008; 2nd 561mm2 on the roof of the Cretegllllllllll at the time of harmony (hereinafter “instant factory”); 131,000,000 won; and 2nd 31,000 won: if the subject matter of the insurance is damaged by fire within the said insurance period, the Plaintiff’s fire insurance contract (hereinafter “instant fire insurance”).
B. B leased the instant factory to the Defendant, and around 01:30 on February 12, 2008, around 01:30, a fire, such as an acryle, etc. (hereinafter “instant fire”) owned by D at approximately two meters in a space between the instant factory and E-factory operated by D (hereinafter “E factory”), was removed from the adjacent factory after the occurrence of a fire (hereinafter “instant fire”), and then the building outer wall, roof board, lighting, etc. of the instant factory were destroyed to the adjacent factory.
C. By April 29, 2008, the Plaintiff paid KRW 35,253,049 to B the fire insurance money under the instant fire insurance.
[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap's statements in Gap's 4-6, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff asserted that, at the time of the occurrence of the instant fire, the Defendant was responsible for compensating for the damages caused by the instant fire, since the instant fire occurred in the vicinity of the instant factory due to care due to the negligence committed by the Defendant’s employees. However, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the fire solely based on the descriptions of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and no other evidence to acknowledge it exists.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.