2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an insurance contract for factory fire insurance with the insurance subject matter amounting to KRW 860 million from April 23, 2015 to April 23, 2016, with the insurance coverage amounting to KRW 3,837.7 square meters in a factory Dong-dong, Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, 912-3 square meters in a factory, and the insurance period of KRW 761.07 square meters in a factory with the insurance coverage amounting to KRW 860 million between April 23, 2015 and April 23, 2016, with the insurance coverage amounting to 3,837 square meters in a diversified area within the above factory Dong-dong, all the machinery and the insurance coverage period, from June 20, 2015 to June 20, 2016, with the insurance coverage amounting to KRW 776,850,000 (hereinafter each of the above insurance contracts referred to as “each of the above insurance contracts”).

B. On January 20, 2016, around 20:35, in order to cut off only the surface of low-carbon steel with heat-processing electric bedane in a manufacturing plant of the non-party company, it is the structure in which the products are flowed by water control in order to reduce oil into approximately 900 % after the electric bed on the metal surface and to improve the corrosion-resistant combustion, and after 150 % of the products are air bed, chilled into the sediment oil of approximately 150 cm, and the sedi oil flows into the pipes into which the sedi oil is carried. Fire (hereinafter “instant sedition”; hereinafter “the instant fire”) occurred from the Ehead (hereinafter “instant sedition”); and machinery such as the ceiling of the factory building and the instant bedane, etc.

C. Under each of the instant insurance contracts, the Plaintiff paid KRW 26,638,247 to the non-party company with insurance proceeds on May 18, 2016.

The competent police station, which investigated the fire of this case, concluded the case that "the cause of the fire of this case is presumed to have been presumed to have no suspicion of fire and fire-fighting," and that there was no suspicion of fire and fire-fighting. The case was concluded that "the cause of the fire of this case was golded in the part adjacent to the water pipe of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the air cooling of this case") and hot oil was dried with water and water, and water was dried with water, and water was explosiond by a sudden flag.

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of Gap 1-6 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff.