1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 50,000,000 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and against this, from August 12, 2016 to March 22, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company running an insurance business upon obtaining permission under the Insurance Business Act. The Defendant is a person who runs a business of collecting LPG containers for vehicles and extracting high-pressure gas remaining in a container and storing the container in a storage tank and selling the container in scrap metal.

B. On January 29, 2016, the Defendant entered into a fire insurance contract (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with the Plaintiff, which includes a fire, injury, death, and disability after the death of the said workplace (a subscription amount of KRW 10 million), a fire fine security (a subscription amount of KRW 20 million), a building security (a subscription amount of KRW 50 million), a fire liability security (a subscription amount of KRW 100 million), a gas accident liability security (a subscription amount of KRW 50 million), and a gas accident liability security (a subscription amount of KRW 50 million).

C. On August 11, 2016, a fire accident occurred (hereinafter “the fire accident in this case”) due to explosion of liquefied petroleum gas stored in the LPG gas tank and gas storage tank, etc., where gas valves were leaked due to the heat leakage in the LPG gas tank.

【Ground of recognition】 The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 18 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. At the time of the conclusion of the instant insurance contract, the Plaintiff’s assertion is limited to 30 to 40 gas supply at the Defendant’s workplace, but at the time of the instant fire accident, there were more than 2,50 gas supply than 100 gas supply at the Defendant’s workplace.

Article 23 of the Terms and Conditions of the Insurance Contract of this case provides for the obligation to notify the insurance company of the fact that the contractee clearly changes or alters the risks, but the defendant did not notify the plaintiff of such increase in risks.

Therefore, Article 25 of the terms of the insurance contract of this case.