1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, KRW 838,898 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto are from February 21, 2019 to April 24, 2020.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurance company that entered into a fire insurance contract with C and Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government with regard to the facilities, equipment, etc. of the “F” (hereinafter “Plaintiff store”) located in the second floor D, and the Defendant is an insurance company that entered into a fire insurance contract with G on the “I” located in the second floor H of the said building (hereinafter “Defendant store”).

B. On December 18, 2018, around 11:20 on December 18, 2018, a fire occurred at the Defendant shop (hereinafter “instant fire”) and the Plaintiff’s store and its internal facilities, such as noise, etc., and the flood and polluted damage caused by fire extinguishing dust.

C. On February 15, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,198,426 of the insurance proceeds to C according to the instant insurance contract, and paid KRW 545,500 with the adjustment cost.

On the other hand, the cause of the fire in this case is presumed to have been caused by the heat or excess of the emitting range in the Defendant shop. At the time, the person related to the Defendant shop operated the emitting range in the Defendant shop for the heating of the emitting range in the Defendant shop, and reported his duties to the next office.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 7, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant’s duty to pay indemnity against the Plaintiff is also acknowledged, on the premise that the Defendant’s negligence was recognized with respect to the occurrence of the instant fire and the expansion of damage, as the occurrence of the fire in this case was recognized, since the Defendant’s duty to pay indemnity against the Plaintiff is also acknowledged, inasmuch as the Defendant’s duty to pay indemnity against the Plaintiff is also acknowledged, where the emitting operator operates at a place to verify the operational situation of the emitting operator at any time.

B. As to this, the Defendant is merely due to the mechanical defect in the electric emitting range in the Defendant shop, and there is no negligence in causation with the instant fire to the Defendant insured.