1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

A. The following facts are apparent in the process of the litigation:

(1) The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an integrated insurance contract with Nonparty A and E (see attached Form) and filed a lawsuit against the Defendant claiming for reimbursement of the insurance money paid due to a fire-fighting accident that occurred in the damages caused by the fire-fighting accident that occurred in the Goyang-dong-gu, Manyang-si, U.S., C, B, B, and D, and B, and clothing owned by Nonparty F, etc., the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for reimbursement totaling KRW 30,341,406, and damages for delay. The court of first instance dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on September 15, 201.

(2) On June 15, 2012, the Plaintiff appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and the first instance court prior to remand dismissed all the Plaintiff’s appeal.

(3) The Plaintiff filed an appeal on September 24, 2014. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded only the claim for reimbursement due to the failure to exercise the right on the ground B and C ground B in Goyang-si, Manyang-si, Ilyang-si, and the Plaintiff’s appeal on September 24, 2014, and dismissed the appeal on the remainder of the building A and on the part of subrogationing F.

B. The remainder of the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity due to the owner’s Na-Ba’s failure to satisfy the Plaintiff’s claim is finalized at the same time as the Supreme Court’s judgment of remand was rendered. Accordingly, the subject of the judgment after remanding is limited to the claim for indemnity due to the destroyed and remanded B-Ba’s failure to satisfy the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity.

2. Basic facts

A. On July 3, 2006, the Plaintiff, as indicated in the attached Tables 1 and 2, as indicated in the attached Tables 1 and 2, shall each insurance period of the same insurance period, each of which is the same as the insurance period, where the Plaintiff, as in the attached Tables 1 and 2, Ilyang-si B, Ildong-gu, C Dongdong-gu, Gabbbbbide, and Gabide Gabbide 399.90 square meters (hereinafter “instant operation”), and 396 square meters of a single-story warehouse of the same structure, such as Dong Dong-dong No. bdong-dong, and Dong-dong No. 396 square meters (hereinafter “instant multi-dong”) and C, and D ground Madong as an insurance object.