The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurance company that entered into an automobile insurance contract with C with D (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is the owner and occupant of a household-production factory in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si (four buildings and sites consisting of a steel-frame sand position panel, and the total floor area is 1,576.6 square meters; hereinafter “Defendant factory”).

B. On January 26, 2019, around 04:00, a fire that could not identify the cause inside the Defendant’s factory (hereinafter “instant fire”) occurred and the Defendant’s factory was relocated to the front, and a new factory, such as G factories located in the F in Kimpo-si adjacent to its influence.

The plaintiff's vehicle parked in the G parking lot has suffered damage that is burned in this process.

C. On March 19, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 11,570,000 as insurance money to the above C.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1-1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the fire of this case occurred due to the defect in the construction or preservation of the Defendant’s factory, which is a structure, and thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 758 or 750 of the Civil Act.

Since the plaintiff paid 11,570,000 won as insurance money, the defendant must pay the plaintiff the amount of indemnity and damages for delay equivalent to the above amount pursuant to Article 682 of the Commercial Act.

3. Determination

A. The defect in the establishment and preservation of a structure under Article 758(1) of the Civil Act 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, the determination shall be based on whether the installer and the preservation of the structure has fulfilled the duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the risk of the structure.

Supreme Court on May 23, 2013