1. Defendant E’s KRW 721,025,576 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from May 22, 2015 to May 18, 2017.

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff is a corporation that has been operating in a building listed in attached Table 1 (hereinafter referred to as “damageed building of this case”).

Defendant E is the owner of the building indicated in Annex B (hereinafter “instant building”) located in the vicinity of the instant damaged building, and Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) is a corporation that leased the instant building from Defendant E and operated in the instant building. Defendant C is the internal director of Defendant B and Defendant D are the auditors of Defendant B.

On May 22, 2015, at around 01:02, fire occurred in the instant building, and the instant building was destroyed, and 2 and 3 floors were burned of the instant damaged building.

(2) The Plaintiff concluded an insurance contract with Samsung Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. prior to the occurrence of the instant fire. However, the Plaintiff received KRW 809,00,852 from Samsung Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., based on the calculation of the amount of damages incurred to the Plaintiff due to the instant fire at KRW 1,803,43,940.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 10 through 13, 15, 16 (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, and defendant C and D's assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings by the plaintiff as to the purport of the whole pleadings is merely an individual company of defendant C and D, and the actual possessor of the building of this case is the defendant C and D, and the fire of this case occurred due to the violation and negligence of the above defendants' duty to take protective measures.

Therefore, the above Defendants are liable for damages under Articles 750 and 758 of the Civil Act to the fire of this case.

Defendant B’s liability for damages arising from the tort committed by Defendant C and D is liable for compensation as an employer of the said Defendants.

Furthermore, if the above defendants are not the possessor, the possessor of the building of this case is the defendant B.