1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 10,354,723 to the Plaintiff; and (b) 5% per annum from December 25, 2013 to June 10, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Insurance Act”), the Plaintiff is an insurer which has entered into an industrial accident compensation insurance contract with a special corporation established with the Minister of Employment and Labor to promptly and fairly compensate for occupational accidents of workers after being entrusted with the industrial accident compensation insurance business by the Minister of Employment and Labor (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act”), and the Defendant is a company that mainly leases and uses the industrial accident compensation insurance contract under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “instant factory”). The instant factory and the instant factory are adjacent to D.

B. At around 20:54 on March 30, 2013, E, a worker of the instant plant, caused a fire in the inside of the instant plant, and as well as other workers belonging to B, with the roof of the French B factory, in order to prevent fire, he/she was faced with injury, such as a thring, 2, 3rd pressure diversing, and smokeing of both sides of the instant plant, among steel materials installed between the instant factories, in order to have access to the instant factory, which is a string of the string factory, in order to extinguish fire.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

B. On the factory of this case

At the time of the occurrence of a fire, there was no resident at all, such as the foregoing fire, and the factory of this case was discharged by the fire, and the factory B was destroyed by 1/3.

With respect to the instant accident, the Plaintiff paid respectively KRW 18,818,950 of temporary layoff benefits, KRW 30,287,160 of disability benefits, and KRW 9,522,190 of medical care benefits.

[Reasons for Recognition] Class A, Evidence Nos. 3, 6, 7, 10, Evidence Nos. 2, 5, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In the following circumstances, a fire is inflammable inside the factory of this case, which is recognized as comprehensively taking account of Gap evidence 6, 10, Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 8, and the overall purport of the pleadings on the images of Gap evidence 8.