beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 29,229,639 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from February 3, 2017 to March 20, 2018.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. B operated an beauty room in the name of “D” on the first floor of the ground building C in lightyang-si, and the Defendant operated a restaurant (hereinafter “Defendant shop”) in the name of “E” on the side of the damaged shop of the first floor of the same building.
B. B entered into a fire insurance contract with the Plaintiff with the following content:
▷ 보험계약자 및 피보험자 : B ▷ 보험기간 : 2015. 4. 13. - 2020. 4. 13. ▷ 보험목적물 : 피해 점포 ▷ 보험가입금액 : 화재손해(실손) - 건물 및 부속설비 : 100,000,000원, 집기비품 : 30,000,000원, 시설 : 50,000,000원
C. On October 9, 2016, a fire occurred at the Defendant shop around 1:40 on the occurrence of the instant fire, and the said fire was destroyed by the house fixtures, facilities, etc. located in the damaged store and the damaged store, located in the damaged store.
A certified damage adjuster calculated the amount of damages sustained by B due to the instant fire as KRW 18,199,901, facility 30,516,165, and the Plaintiff determined the insurance amount to be paid in total at KRW 48,716,056 based on the result of the said calculation, and paid it to B on February 2, 2017.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. 1) The defect in the installation and preservation of a structure as referred to in Article 758(1) of the Civil Act related to the relevant law refers to a state in which a structure fails to meet normal safety requirements according to its use. In determining whether such safety is satisfied, it shall be determined on the basis of whether the installer and custodian of the structure has fulfilled his/her duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the risk of the structure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da24499, Jan. 14, 2005). 2) Determination of the installation and custodian of the structure in question (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da2