1. As to an accident listed in the attached Table 1, the plaintiff against the defendant based on the insurance contract stated in the attached Table 2.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 30, 2013, the Plaintiff concluded a housing fire insurance contract with the council of occupants’ representatives (hereinafter “instant apartment”) to compensate for the property damages suffered by the head of each household due to a fire that occurred in the instant apartment as shown in the attached Form 2 with the council of occupants’ representatives (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

B. On March 6, 2014, the Defendant filed a claim for insurance proceeds of KRW 1 million with the Plaintiff, asserting that a fire occurred on March 6, 2014, and on March 6, 2014, 131 Dong 706, where he/she resides, and that the camping and the food washing machine was destroyed (attached Form 1).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the fire occurred in the apartment located in the Defendant’s residence.

There is no evidence to deem that an insured incident occurred, such as a camping camr or a loss of washing equipment, etc., the absence of an insurance claim shall be confirmed.

B. As to the occurrence of an insurance accident under the judgment insurance contract, the claimant bears the burden of proof.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da12241, 12258 Decided September 30, 2010). In the instant case, it is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the images of the health room and the evidence No. 3-1 through No. 10 of the evidence No. 3 were destroyed by a fire alleged by the Defendant, and that the said images were destroyed by a fire, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, there is no plaintiff's obligation to pay insurance money based on the insurance contract listed in the attached Form (1) as to the accident mentioned in the attached Form (2), and there is a benefit of confirmation because the defendant contests it.

3. The conclusion is that the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.