The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal are the judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasoning for this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the reasoning is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant’s vehicle constitutes a structure under Article 758 of the Civil Act.

Since the fire of this case occurred due to the defect in the installation and maintenance of the Defendant vehicle, the Defendant is an insurer of F, the owner of the interest on the Defendant vehicle, and is obligated to pay the amount of damages to the Plaintiff who paid insurance money to D, the owner of the Plaintiff vehicle.

3. Determination

A. “Defects in the installation and preservation of a structure” under Article 758(1) of the Civil Act refers to a structure in a state of failing to meet ordinary safety requirements according to its use. The burden of proving the existence of such defect lies on the injured party. In determining whether such safety is satisfied, it should be determined on the basis of whether the installer and custodian of the structure fulfilled his/her duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required in light of the social norms in proportion to the risk of the structure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Da79846, Aug. 22, 2003; 2008Da61615, Feb. 11, 2010). Furthermore, in order for Defendant 1 to install and preserve a structure, it cannot be said that there is a defect in the installation and maintenance of the structure, to the extent that the vehicle did not have a high level of safety requirements at all times, and thus, it can not be said that there is a defect in the installation and preservation of the structure.