1. On October 11, 2013, around 02:58, the first floor on the ground of the steel-frame sand site position panel 1st 81.

1. Basic facts

A. From Dec. 1, 1996 to Nov. 2, 2003, the Defendant operated a store with the trade name “D” (hereinafter “instant store”) from the 1stm area of 81.1m area on the ground of the 1st floor and 81.1m area on the ground of the 1stm area of the 1st floor of the Woldong-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, the former husband owned.

B. On September 16, 2013, the Defendant concluded an insurance contract with the Plaintiff, stating that the subject matter covered by the insurance during the insurance period, as described in the attached list, compensates for losses caused by a fire (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

At the time of the instant insurance contract, the Plaintiff compensated for direct damage, fire-fighting damage (including direct damage and indirect damage that occurred during the process of extinguishing fire), escape damage (including direct damage and indirect damage that occurred for the insurance purpose for five days from the escape area), the contractor or the insured’s removal of the remainder, and the damage caused by intentional or gross negligence by the contractor, the insured or their legal representatives was not compensated.

(Terms and Conditions related to Fire Damage).

On October 11, 2013, at the instant store around 02:58, fire occurred and the instant store was relocated.

(hereinafter “instant fire”). D.

On October 15, 2013, the Defendant claimed insurance money based on the instant insurance contract to the Plaintiff regarding the instant fire. On November 1, 2013, the amount of insurance money claimed around November 1, 2013 was specified as KRW 80 million.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Gap evidence 10-15, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff is liable to pay the insurance money of KRW 80 million due to the fire of this case, and claims insurance money. ① At the time of the insurance contract of this case, the "damage caused by the intention or gross negligence of the contractor, the insured, or his legal representative" was decided not to compensate by the defendant. The fire of this case is the fire of the defendant who is the contractor and the insured.