beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. D is operating the beauty art room in the name of “F” on the 3rd floor of the E building in the East Sea (hereinafter “instant beauty art room”).
The beauty art room of this case is installed with air conditioners manufactured and sold by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant air conditioners”).
B. On September 5, 2016, the Plaintiff concluded an insurance contract (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with D and the insured as “D,” with the insurance period “from September 5, 2016 to September 5, 2021,” with the object “from September 5, 2016 to September 5, 2021,” and with the content of coverage “the building, house, movable property, facilities, property, and other things of the instant beauty room,” and with the content of coverage “fire (including thunders), fire, fire, and loss compensation at the time of occurrence of escape damage.”
C. D, around 09:00 on January 30, 2017, worked at the beauty art room of this case and operated the instant hot flag. On the same day immediately after that day, D, at around 09:03, she started the smoke from the upper part of the hot wind season of this case, she gushed, soard, soar.
hereinafter referred to as "the fire of this case"
(D) The Plaintiff paid KRW 59,068,124 insurance money to D on March 20, 2017 for damages incurred by D due to the instant fire. [Grounds for recognition] absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and Eul evidence Nos. 2 (including the number of pages; hereinafter the same shall apply)
each entry, the purport of the whole pleading
2. The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the internal distribution of the instant hot flag, which is an area exclusively controlled by the Defendant, was in a state that fails to meet the safety requirements under social norms.
Since the fire of this case was caused by these defects, the defendant is liable to compensate for damages suffered D pursuant to Article 3 of the Product Liability Act and Article 750 of the Civil Act.
The plaintiff is D in accordance with the insurance contract of this case.