1. On June 17, 2012, at around 23:10, it occurred at the general factory of the Daegu Seo-gu Office B of lightweight aggregate steel-frame, assembly-type board, and roof.

In this lawsuit, the defendant claims insurance money as a counterclaim against the plaintiff for the confirmation of non-existence of insurance money payment obligation, so the principal lawsuit and counterclaim are also viewed as a counterclaim.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant leased a factory stated in the purport of the claim (hereinafter “instant building”) and is a company planning business, stage equipment manufacturing business, etc., and C is the actual operator of the Defendant.

B. On October 1, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract with the Defendant as indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

The terms and conditions of the instant insurance contract stipulate that the Plaintiff shall compensate for direct damage, fire-fighting damage, and escape damage caused by fire for the insurance purpose (Article 15): Provided, That the Plaintiff shall not pay insurance money for the damage caused by intentional or gross negligence of the insured (in the case of a corporation, the director or any other institution executing the duties of the corporation) or his/her legal representative, and for the damage caused by intentional or gross negligence of the contractor or his/her legal representative.

§ 17). (c)

On June 17, 2012, around 23:10, a fire occurred inside the instant building (hereinafter “instant fire”) and movable property, such as the stage and event equipment, office fixtures, etc., owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant movable property”) was lost.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant fire occurred due to the Defendant’s fire that is the actual manager, and thus constitutes the grounds for exemption stipulated in the insurance policy, and thus, there is no insurance payment obligation against the Defendant.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the instant movable was destroyed due to the instant fire, and the Defendant sustained a total of KRW 462,083,727, and thus, the Plaintiff incurred losses.