1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurance company that entered into a fire insurance contract with C as follows.

- Does - The examination 100 million won (one accident) with a substitute for the liability of KRW 20,000,000 for the house of KRW 20,000,00 for the house of KRW 20,000,000 for the cover of the insurance object/place of insurance, G buildings, Hhos, I(F) on October 18, 2015 through October 18, 2020 between the examination subjects C (F) examination subjects and the examination subjects (F).

나. C은 위 보험목적물인 점포에서 피부�(상호:F)을 운영하는데, 2018. 3. 2. 20:00경 점포 내부에 비치되어 있던 빨래건조기(이하 ‘이 사건 건조기’라고 한다)에서 화재가 발생하여 내부 건물 마감재와 집기 등이 소훼되고, 위층에 있는 산후조리원의 건물 마감재와 집기가 화염에 그슬리는 등의 연소피해를 입히는 바람에 원고가 피해자들에게 2018. 3. 23. 10,000,000원, 2018. 4. 17. 10,683,500원, 2018. 5. 30. 13,935,600원 등 합계 34,619,100원의 보험금을 지급하였다.

C. The above prompt manufacturing machine is manufactured and sold by the defendant.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 and 2, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment thereon

A. 1 argument - The point of origin defect in the performance of the product is the inside of the drying machine, and the heat is presumed to have been accumulated in the inside ventilation of the drying machine, and the fire is presumed to have occurred. In view of all the fire at the time of the occurrence of the fire, there is a performance defect such as exhaustion of the drying machine in this case, and this existed in the manufacturing process, which is the exclusive control area of the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to compensate the victims of the fire of this case according to the product liability and the tort liability under the Civil Act, and the plaintiff is the exercise of the right of indemnification under the insurer subrogation doctrine, and the amount equivalent to the insurance money paid to the victims and this.