1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive property insurance contract with the Sungnam-si branch of a building D as an insurance object (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”), and the Defendant is a person who has leased the above building E and operated the F cafeteria.

B. On May 31, 2017, around 06:56, there was an accident where the garrising was destroyed due to the decline in the 2nd floor H of the building G, the second floor of the building G (hereinafter “instant accident”) (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On December 27, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 45,000,000 to H in accordance with the instant insurance contract.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence before the occurrence of the obligation to pay the indemnity amount, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 6’s respective arguments, namely, ① the investigation of the natural defects conducted at the Defendant’s request, the accident in this case occurred due to the occurrence of heavy walking inside the ceiling for the inspection of water leakage, etc., which led to the concentration of the upper floor, and the strongness of the upper floor, which led to the spread of the upper floor, and accordingly, the occurrence of vibration caused by the construction of the upper floor, the increase of water leakage of the upper floor, which led to the increase in water leakage of the upper floor, are presumed to have given a certain reason to escape from the upper floor, and ② the receipt of a civil petition on water leakage at the restaurant operated by the Defendant prior to the occurrence of the accident in this case was several times before the accident in this case, and ③ the fact that the Defendant was negligent in inspecting the water leakage of the upper floor in this case.