1. Basic facts

A. On July 12, 2010, the Defendant’s father: (a) leased a lease deposit of KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 180,000,000; (b) from August 16, 2010 to August 15, 2015; (c) the Defendant, a father of the Defendant, leased a household factory and store with the name “E” in the instant building from around that time.

B. On September 30, 2010, the Defendant concluded a fire insurance contract on the instant building and machinery and movable property located within the said building (hereinafter “instant machinery and movable property”) with the Defendant as the insured through G (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

G is an insurance solicitor belonging to the LAS insurance company, which deals with the insurance product of other insurance companies as well as the plaintiff.

C. A fire (hereinafter “instant fire”) occurred in the instant building around 08:45 on February 28, 201 during the insurance period of the instant insurance contract, and the instant building, machinery, and movables were destroyed.

Around March 5, 2011, the Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for the payment of insurance proceeds from the instant fire, but the Plaintiff reserved the payment of insurance proceeds by asserting that the instant fire was caused by the fire prevention between the Defendant and his wife F. On April 5, 2012, the Daeyoung Damage Evaluation Co., Ltd., which was the damage adjuster of the instant fire, filed a complaint against the Defendant and F as a general structure, fire prevention, and fraud; however, the Defendant and F were subject to a non-prosecution disposition on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the suspected crime on December 17, 2012.

Article 4 (Contract for Third Party) (2) Where an insured incident has occurred in a contract for the benefit of a third party, if the contractor compensates the third party for the damages incurred due to the occurrence of the insured incident.