A. On May 18, 2007, Defendant B, the spouse of Defendant A, registered his/her business with the trade name “D” and leased approximately 30 square meters (hereinafter “instant factory”) among the first floor of the building and Dong-dong F in Ansan-si (hereinafter “instant building”) owned by Defendant A in the name of the Defendant A, Ansan-si (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. Around 20:20 on September 19, 2012, Defendant C moved to the metal scrap and oil on the floor where a flame was on the floor of the instant plant, and the fire that spreads down to the entire building of the instant building was incurred.

(hereinafter “the instant fire”). As a result, among the total 1,01.38 square meters of the instant building, 689.38 square meters of the structure, the board wall, and the roof were damaged, and the remainder of 322 square meters of the instant building suffered damage from minor flames.

C. E entered into a fire insurance contract between June 14, 2012 and the Green Damage Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Green Damage Insurance”) with the term of the contract from June 14, 2012 to June 16, 16,000. As to the instant building, E entered into a fire insurance contract with the amount of KRW 304,00,000 (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

On December 26, 2012, the Green Damage Insurance paid KRW 146,82,455 according to the ratio of the insured amount and the insurable value among KRW 182,661,762, which was the remainder after deducting the remaining value of KRW 4,809,00 from the damages of the instant building from KRW 187,470,762.

E. On May 3, 2013, the Plaintiff was transferred the contractual status, etc. of the instant insurance contract from the Green Damage Insurance through a decision to transfer contract by the Financial Services Commission.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 8, Gap evidence 11, Gap evidence 12 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Claim against Defendant C

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant fire occurred due to the negligence of Defendant C, and Defendant C was the fire of this case.