1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Between C and C, the insured C and the insurance period from November 3, 2015 to November 3, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a fire insurance contract with the purport that the subject matter of the insurance would compensate for damages caused by fire, with the entirety of the D buildings in Gyeyang-gu, Soyang-gu, Seoul, the first basement, and its house facilities.

B. The Defendant is the owner of the Gyeyang-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F Building located adjacent to the above D Building (hereinafter “instant building”). G leased the Hho Lake shop (hereinafter “instant store”) from the Defendant and operated the restaurant in the name of “I”.

C. A fire in the instant building (hereinafter “instant fire”) occurred on November 27, 2015, around 10:57, and the fire was destroyed by a simple warehouse, main part, and the ceiling of a hole, etc. among the instant stores, and up to the adjacent D buildings, the fire was destroyed by a fire, and two air conditioners, outside the air conditioners, installed in the relevant section for common use, were set up.

In light of the fact that the Gyeonggi Provincial Police Agency’s Scientific Investigation Team’s distinction between the upper part of the wall upper part (referring to the structure that was made by placing the ceiling and the floor) adjacent to the hole from the main part of the store of this case, the fire of this case was first launched inside the ceiling.

E. On April 28, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,505,174 to the insured C in accordance with the said fire insurance contract.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the fire of this case’s fire occurred in the main line inside the main line of the instant store, which belongs to the Defendant’s control and management area, the owner of the instant store. Since the fire of this case occurred due to the negligence that the Defendant failed to safely manage the said electrical distribution line, the damage was caused to the non-permanent air conditioners 2 to which the non-permanent air conditioners C owned.