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

A. The Plaintiff concluded a fire insurance contract with A as follows:

(hereinafter referred to as “instant insurance contract”). B C A

B. The Defendant New Daily Fire Insurance Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the “New Daily Fire Insurance Co., Ltd”) subscribed to product liability insurance for Defendant Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Modern Marine Fire Insurance”).

C. On August 20, 2014, around 03:40, at around 03:3:40, a fire occurred in a studio (hereinafter “instant studio”) located in the second floor of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C-based multi-household housing (hereinafter “instant studio”), which is the subject of the instant insurance, (i) and thereby, was damaged by a part of multi-household housing, including subparagraph 302.

Residents D, 302 multi-household 302, purchased and used the instant vessel strawle on June 6, 2006, which was manufactured by Defendant New Daily Electricity, for eight years, and the fire of this case occurred among those who were suffering from strawle in small banks.

E. On August 20, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 30,121,734 as the instant fire insurance amount to the insured A (the owner of the entire multi-household housing).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 7, Eul evidence 1 to 5 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the fire of this case occurred due to the damage to the internal cable of the air or the electrical generation by the wire line, and that is, within the power-driven machine, caused by the manufacturing defect of the Defendant’s new nuclear power. If, as the Defendants’ assertion, the internal electric wires were to be divided in the assembly process, and the fire occurred due to the division of the internal electric wires during the assembly process, then it was caused by the manufacturing defect of the Defendant’s new nuclear power. (In accordance with the evidence Nos. 6 and No. 5, according to the evidence Nos. 5, the NAF assembly type, such as the instant vessel wind, (the part in charge of the height control of the stand line) was assembled to the part connected with the base line under the NAF, and then it was fixed to the NAF. The Defendants are fixed by the employer.