2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

From December 5, 2008 to December 5, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a fire insurance contract with B, setting the subject matter of insurance as “Seoul Seocho-gu C Apartment, 504 (hereinafter “damageed Buildings”) and household effects in the damaged building”, “10 million won in the purchase amount of insurance, and 30,000,000 won in the household-to-land, and each insurance subject matter as KRW 30,00,000 in the household-to-land.”

On February 1, 2015, around 03:24, the fire that occurred from the tent behind the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D (hereinafter referred to as the “fire-fighting building”) (hereinafter referred to as the “instant fire”) was spread to the damaged building adjacent to the building, and partly destroyed the damaged building.

On July 15, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 949,662 to B, the insured under the fire insurance contract.

At the time of the instant fire, the Defendant operated a general restaurant on the first floor of the building located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E with the trade name “F”.

[Reasons for Recognition] The plaintiff asserted that Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the entire pleadings, and the purport of fire prevention parties, and that the plaintiff caused the fire of this case intentionally by attaching fire to the goods held by the defendant, and thus, the defendant must compensate the plaintiff who acquired the right to indemnity by paying damages suffered by Eul.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the fire of this case is not related to himself, and therefore there is no liability for damages against the plaintiff.

Judgment

According to the statement No. 7 and the fact finding about the Seoul Seocho Police Station of the first instance, the police officer confirmed the scene of the fire in this case by attaching fire to the articles possessed by the fire prevention crime through closed-circuit television (CCTV) video while investigating the cause of the fire in this case, but the above video alone caused the fire to the ground that the fire in this case was not clear.