1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On December 31, 2012, the Plaintiff concluded a general fire insurance contract (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with Korea Nicesaw Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nicesaw”) and with the insurance period from December 31, 2012 to December 31, 2013, with the purchase amount of insurance KRW 85 million for each facility and office fixtures shop, and with the purchase amount of KRW 25 million for each inventory store (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

B. On January 13, 2013, around 18:54, the convenience store located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 1st floor (hereinafter “instant store”) “Satop D” (hereinafter “instant store”), which was installed in a kitchen, was destroyed by fire in the frying machine (hereinafter “frying machine”) inside the relevant facility, and caused the loss of interior interior mechers, electric facilities, office fixtures, inventory assets, etc.

(hereinafter “instant fire”). C.

As a result of the on-site investigation, the Seodaemun Fire Station expressed its opinion that the fire of this case occurred due to the automatic control failure of the refrying in the instant case, which led to the outbreak of the instant fire. D.

On February 28, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 69,094,112 as insurance money to the Stosaw according to the insurance contract of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) Defendant B, the representative of the Plaintiff’s primary assertion E, supplied the instant sprink to the hacksaw, and installed in the instant store. The instant fire occurred on the wind that the temperature control device failed to operate properly due to lack of safety required for the products to be protruding.

Meanwhile, Defendant B converted his personal business chain to Defendant A, who is a corporate director, is in office as a director. It is reasonable to view that Defendant B acquired Defendant B’s damage liability on the instant fire that occurred due to the defect in the spunching, etc. arising from the contract concluded between Defendant B and Defendant A.