1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Common factual relations;

A. (1) The Plaintiff is an insurance company that entered into a comprehensive insurance contract with the council of occupants’ representatives of Suwon-si apartment complex in Suwon-si with the insurance period of 145-74, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, for November 3, 2014 to November 3, 2015.

(2) The Defendant Hantec Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Hantec Group”) is a company that manufactures six CCTV monitors installed in the above apartment control room (hereinafter “instant monitors”). The Defendant Hantec Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Ateckcker”) is a company that subcontracted the instant monitoring installation work from Hyundai Industrial Development Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Acker”) on October 28, 201 and completed the installation on October 31, 201.

B. (1) On September 14, 2015, around 02:50, the occurrence of the instant fire, at around 02:50, the instant monitoring and storage devices, and the ceiling, etc., destroyed the fire (hereinafter “instant fire”).

(2) On the basis of the following findings, the head of the Suwon Fire Station who investigated the instant fire: (a) concluded that “it is a fire that could not prove obvious combustion factors” is an electrical element in the L CD monitors, in view of the fact that all six monitors of the instant fire were destroyed and damaged during the process of suppression, and that it is not possible to identify the origin of the chemical, burning type, and electrical characteristics; or that other chemical factors are not observed. However, the head of the relevant fire station concluded that “it is a fire that cannot prove obvious combustion factors.”

In addition, the Suwon-nam Police Station, the competent police station, concluded that “CCTV monitoring part was seriously damaged,” and concluded that the first installation of CCTV monitoring part is presumed to be the CCTV monitoring part, and the firer is presumed to have been fired by electrical factors caused by the excessive heat.”

C. The plaintiff.