1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Plaintiff A, which constitutes the following amount of payment.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance for the acceptance of the judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the part written by the court of first instance as stated in the following paragraph (2). Thus, this is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2. On the 3th page of the judgment of the court of first instance, the phrase “safety certification” of the 21st page of the judgment of the court of first instance is deemed to be “safety certification”.

From 5th to 9th class of the first instance judgment, 6th class to 5th class of the same shall be followed as follows:

3) The Defendant asserts that the deduction for profit and loss should be made on the ground that the Plaintiff A received KRW 90,330,658 from the insurance company due to the instant fire.

In a case where the insured claims for damages against the insurer at the same time due to a third party who has committed a tort or a default on his/her liability for damages, the insurance money received from the insurer under the non-life insurance contract has the nature of quid pro quo of the insurance premium paid by the insurer up to the time of the occurrence of the insurance accident, which is separate from the liability of the third party, so it is not deductible from its liability for damages.

Therefore, the above insured may claim against a third party for the performance of his/her liability to compensate for any remaining losses without compensating for the insurance proceeds received from the insurer (However, the liability within a limited scope by negligence offsetting, etc.; hereinafter the same shall apply). If the total amount of damages remains more than the amount of the third party's liability to compensate for losses, the third party may claim for the full amount of its liability to compensate for losses. If the remaining amount of damages is less than the amount of the third party's liability to compensate for losses, the third party may claim for compensation for the remaining amount

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 2014Da46211 Decided January 22, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the Plaintiff suffered from the instant fire.