beta
Text
1. Defendant C’s KRW 72,343,568 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from May 16, 2015 to June 16, 2016, and the following.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On May 16, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded a factory fire insurance contract with D (hereinafter “D”) setting the insurance period from May 17, 2014 to May 17, 2015 with respect to the building and machinery of a factory, etc. located in Chungcheongnam-gun E, Hongsung-gun, with the total subscription amount of KRW 1,390,00,000.
B. At around 10:50 on March 4, 2015, Defendant C was performing cutting work to dismantle and reestablish the difference between 3 and 4 the above factory building. However, Defendant C did not take safety measures such as checking in advance whether there was inflammable substances in the surrounding area or covering the lusorgor with the safety board to prevent the lusorgor from sticking to the surrounding inflammable substances. While performing the work, Defendant C did not take any safety measures such as checking in advance whether there was inflammable substances or covering the lusorgor with the lusor in the lusorum powder, which was stored near the middle dust, and caused fire.
(hereinafter “instant fire”). C.
The fire of this case destroyed the above factory building, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 144,687,136 of the insurance money to D on May 15, 2015, following an assessment of the damage caused by the fire of this case.
[Reasons for Recognition] Defendant A and B: A without dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings: deemed confession (Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act)
2. Determination
A. 1) According to the fact of recognition of the claim against Defendant C, the Defendant C was liable for damages caused by the instant fire, as it did not take measures to prevent fire at the factory building, and caused the instant fire. As such, the Defendant C was liable for compensating for damages caused by the instant fire. 2) The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant A concluded a construction contract on the said construction work with D, and dispatched the instant fire to the work site by employing the Defendant B and C, and by neglecting the duty of supervision. As such, the Defendant C was an employer who employed the Defendant C, or joint tortfeasor, jointly with the Defendant C.