The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff equivalent to the amount ordered to pay shall be revoked.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. On April 11, 2018, the Plaintiff, who runs an insurance business, concluded a fire insurance contract with C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”) with respect to the building of the ground D (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff’s factory”) and the machinery installed within the factory in the Seo-gu Busan (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff’s factory”), with the insurance period from April 11, 2018 to April 11, 2019.

(hereinafter “instant fire insurance contract”). B.

On April 3, 2019, at around 20:38, a fire occurred in the defendant's factory located in Busan Sho-gu, Busan (hereinafter "the fire of this case"), and as a result, the inside and outside finishing materials of the plaintiff's factory were burned into neighboring plaintiff's factory, and the window, electricity, and lighting equipment was partially damaged.

C. Damages of the Plaintiff’s factory building due to the instant fire are KRW 18,336,376 (i.e., KRW 1,796,929, KRW 10,072,961, KRW 1608,322, KRW 3,234,70, KRW 394, KRW 1,623,394).

On March 3, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 14,510,105 to C as insurance money.

After investigating the fire site of this case, the competent fire station prepared a fire site investigation report.

The main contents of the fire in this case are presumed to have been launched in the vicinity of the windows of female employees' rest rooms in the second floor of the Defendant factory, and to have been burned into the wall, the first floor contact room, and the neighboring building. The electric power department, the electric wires and the electric wind wires for the cause of the fire appear in the electrical wires for the extension of the new outlet, but there are no electrical peculiar characteristics at the electric wires for the extension at the bottom of the new outlet, so it is possible to presume the fire by electrical factors.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the fire of this case occurred due to the defect that the Defendant’s factory was not equipped with safety, and thus, the Defendant shall be subrogated by the insurer pursuant to Article 682 of the Commercial Act.