1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) the part concerning the payment of insurance money (D. insurance money) by the part concerning the payment of insurance money by the court of first instance 4, 13, 15, 400, 400, 7, 7, 12 below; (b) the part concerning the scope of the exercise of the insurer’s subrogation right by the court of first instance 7, 13, 19, 4) is added; and (c) the part concerning the exercise of the insurer’s subrogation right by the court of first instance 5, 7, 13, and 19, 7, 190, 7, 7, 190, 7, and 190

D. The Plaintiff paid insurance money to the Plaintiff calculated the amount of damages incurred to the instant building due to the instant fire as KRW 63,354,566, and paid KRW 42,801,759 to B, the insured on May 30, 2017.

[4] The scope of the insurer’s right of subrogation and the specific scope of the insurer’s right of subrogation should be examined as to the scope of the insurer’s right of subrogation. Article 682(1) of the Commercial Act provides that “In the event a loss has occurred due to an act of a third party, the insurer who has paid the insurance proceeds shall obtain the rights of the policyholder or the insured with respect to such third party to the extent of the amount paid: Provided, That where the insurer has paid part of the insurance proceeds to be compensated, such rights may be exercised to the extent that does not infringe on the rights of the insured.” Thus, where the insured has not received the insurance proceeds from the insurer and the amount of damages has not been paid by the insurer remains, the amount calculated by deducting the insurance proceeds from the total amount of

) As much as the insured still remains as the right of the insured, and the insurer may directly claim against a third party only the right to claim the portion in excess of the right by subrogation of the insurer (Supreme Court Decision 2011Da1012, Aug. 30, 2012).