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, 2010, the Plaintiff concluded a housing fire insurance contract with the council of occupants' representatives of the Nam-gu Busan apartment (hereinafter "the apartment of this case") to compensate for the damages incurred by the building of this case, temporary materials and machinery as shown in the attached Table 2 with the council of occupants' representatives, and the special terms and conditions for guaranteeing the risks of wind and flood in special buildings to compensate for the damages incurred by wind or flood caused by typhoons, durgical wind, etc. are also the contents of the insurance contract.

B. On August 5, 2014, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff caused a storm that occurred around July 2014 and a typhoon that occurred on August 3, 2014, as indicated in attached Form 1, water was leaked to the wall wall of the boiler room No. 131, 706, and that the Defendant claimed insurance proceeds of KRW 90,000,00,000,000,000,000,000.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1, 2, and 6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff's assertion is unclear as to who received water from the apartment living in the defendant's residential apartment and the occurrence of the damage, and that the non-existence of the insurance claim is 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 that the entries and videos of the Health Team, Nos. 3 and 4 were generated by the Defendant’s assertion and that the remote area was damaged by the occurrence of leakage, and there is no other evidence.

Therefore, there is no plaintiff's obligation to pay insurance money according to 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.