1. The Defendant’s KRW 33,255,50 and its related KRW 5% per annum from September 3, 2014 to December 8, 2016 and the next day.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a contract for gas accident liability insurance with A, a supplier under Article 30 of the Safety Control and Business of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act.

B. On May 3, 2012, the Defendant: around July 2012, at the “D” business establishment operated by Nonparty A, which supplies LPG, produced and installed an electric gas mixture ro at “D” business establishment operated by Nonparty A, and removed existing gas pipelines between the outlet and the horse, which are used for replacing the primary high-pressure gas connected to LPG storage vessel into low-tension gas (NAVH). The Defendant added the secondary gas pressure control instrument on the side of the horse to the general gas gas conditioning. Around July 2012, the Defendant additionally installed a water pressure valve (NAB boiler terms) in which the gas supply pressure is maintained at a low pressure level and maintained at a certain pressure level (NAB boiler terms).

(c) the connection order between the LPG storage vessel and the horse supplied by A is [LPG storage vessel - metal gas pipes - primary pressure control apparatus - rubber - secondary gas control vessel installed by the Defendant - Gama].

On May 9, 2013, on May 20, 2013, the rubber stuff, which was connected by the Defendant to the second gas time, was missing and the explosion accident occurred due to the gas leaked.

(hereinafter “instant accident”) e.

On September 2, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 66,511,00,00, which offsets the victim’s fault of KRW 15% from the total amount of damages 78,248,759, as insurance proceeds, to the victim C.

[Ground of recognition] Uncontentious facts, Gap 1 through 3 evidence, each entry of Eul 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident pertains to the negligence of neglecting safety inspection, etc. by liquefied gas suppliers A, and the Defendant, an unqualified, connected the first pressure control apparatus with the second gas tank, not metal pipes, with general rubber units, instead of general metal pipes, and entered into a steel-cleaning unit, etc., and did not properly fix gas leakage.