2. Determination

A. As seen in the above facts in the instant case, the instant case is the case where the Plaintiff suffered property damage due to the burning of C factories, machinery, etc. adjacent to the Plaintiff, owned by the Plaintiff, caused by a fire from scrap scrap, which was removed from the outside of the F factory building.

On the other hand, D, the owner of F plant, is liable to compensate for the fire of this case, which is an insurance policy, provides that only the insurer shall pay insurance money if the other party suffers property damage due to a fire that occurred in the F plant building, which is the subject of the insurance policy, and that the insurer shall not pay insurance money if the property damage

However, as seen below, if the defendant did not explain the subject of the above special contract on fire-fighting liability and the terms and conditions of the contract concerning the defendant's exemption, the insurer cannot claim such terms and conditions as the content of the insurance contract, and it is the major issue of this case whether the defendant fulfilled the duty of explanation.

Therefore, we will examine this below.

B. Under the relevant legal principles and Article 638-3(1) of the Commercial Act and Article 3 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act, when an insurer concludes an insurance contract, the insurer is obligated to provide the policyholder with specific and detailed explanation of the important contents of the insurance contract, such as the content of the insurance contract, the system of insurance premium rates, changes in the entries in the written subscription, and reasons for the exemption of the insurer’s liability. Therefore, if the insurer concludes an insurance contract in violation of such duty to specify and explain the terms and conditions, the content of