A. In the event of a fire, Defendant A had operated the instant restaurant with the trade name “D” (hereinafter referred to as the “instant restaurant”) by leasing the first floor of the roof of the asbestos slate from Defendant B, which was owned by Defendant B, from Defendant B.

Nonparty E, as the co-owner of the building of the 2nd floor of the Gyeonggi-gun Gambro Gambro, the Gampibro, adjacent to the instant restaurant, operated the pentine of “G” (hereinafter “the instant pentine”). Between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, the insurance period was from March 21, 2013 to March 21, 2014, and the subject matter of the instant insurance was covered by the insurance contract (hereinafter “the instant insurance contract”).

On December 25, 2013, at around 12.23, 2013, four Defendant A et al. observed a fire that occurred in the contact room of the instant restaurant (hereinafter “instant fire”), and thereafter, the instant pention building and Nonparty E et al. were destroyed by fire.

B. On March 13, 2014, the Plaintiff paid to Nonparty E totaling KRW 35,936,062 of the amount of damages incurred by the instant fire to Nonparty E based on the instant insurance contract.

C. (1) As a result of the investigation into the cause of a fire, the fire prevention possibility is excluded in light of the fact that a fire occurs while there is a person inside the instant restaurant building (No. 5-1) as a result of the investigation into the cause of a fire, and the possibility of a fire is excluded from other mechanical factors or gas leakage.

On the basis of the statement that the electric circuit breaker frequently operated at ordinary stations, it was confirmed that the electric wires and shuttlers around the second floor of the entrance (the steel system) were installed, and there was no peculiar points such as the fall and set circuit, etc. which can be identified as a fire due to electric causes.

At the time of the occurrence of the instant fire, the instant restaurant.