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 insurer who entered into a fire mutual aid contract with B and its attached list No. 1 (hereinafter “instant mutual aid contract”) stating that the period of mutual aid from January 16, 2012 to January 16, 2015 with respect to the buildings listed in the attached list No. 1 (hereinafter “object of mutual aid”) owned by B is KRW 2,196,840,000 (hereinafter “instant mutual aid contract”). The Defendant is the owner of the building listed in the attached list No. 2 (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. Around April 23, 2011, the Defendant sold the instant building to C. However, as a dispute arises between the Defendant and C, the Defendant occupied the instant building up to the present day, and thereafter, was undeveloped since November 21, 201.

C. On the parking lot of the instant building, tenants were abandoned, and garbage, such as waste bags, waste lumber, vinyl, etc. was stored. On February 27, 2013, a fire presumed to be an outside person’s non-fluence occurred from the above garbage in light of the fire around 23:08, and the building and the object of deduction were up to the instant building and the object of deduction.

(hereinafter “instant fire”). D.

The fire of this case caused damage to KRW 56,295,737 due to fire, such as outer walls, garrising materials, CCTVs, windows, etc. of the subject matter of mutual aid, and the Plaintiff paid the same amount to B on July 11, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 9, Eul evidence 1 to 7, video (including paper numbers) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant, who is in charge of the structure, installed the outer wall, etc. of the instant building as a fireproof structure, installed automatic fire extinguishing equipment such as stringers, and did not take measures to prevent the occurrence of fire and the spread of fire by appointing a building manager. As such, the Defendant is liable as the owner and possessor of a structure under Article 758(1) of the Civil Act. (2) The Defendant, who is in charge of general tort, neglected the instant waste and did not properly take corrective measures against the entrance. Therefore, the Defendant did not neglect the instant waste and did not properly take place.