1. The facts below the basis of facts do not conflict between the Parties.

On December 3, 2016, the Plaintiff concluded an insurance contract with B listed in attached Table 2.

B around 20:00 on June 11, 2017, around 20:0, there was an accident that shocks the telegraph (hereinafter “instant accident”).

At the time of the accident, the control tower was installed in the telegraph station, and the supply of electricity was suspended in the new erops operated by the Defendant.

The above control tower was restored around 15:00 on June 14, 2017.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s Defendant: (a) discontinued all the new fess in the Defendant’s farming due to the suspension of the supply of the said electricity; (b) claimed that the amount of damage was at least KRW 80,000,000; (c) however, there is no sufficient evidence to prove that the Defendant incurred such damage. Even if a part of the household damages were incurred, such damage cannot be deemed a direct damage caused by the instant accident; and (d) the perpetrator did not have known or could have known the damage at the time of the accident; (b) the Plaintiff, the perpetrator’s insurer, was not liable to compensate for the damage; (c) the number of new fess in the Defendant’s farming market was stopped for a considerable period due to the delay in the instant accident caused by the Defendant B and the Plaintiff’s restoration report; and (d) all the new fess

The total amount of damages is equivalent to KRW 12,938,00,000 for the purchase cost of 1,00,000 for 1,00,000 for 12,938,00 for 1,000 for 1,000,000 for 1,000 for 1,000,000 for 1,000 from the future sales revenue for 1,000,000 for 1,000 in the form (=18,000 x 15,00

These damages could have been sufficiently predicted by the perpetrator B, which is the head of the village, which is the majority of the people.