1. The defendant is entitled to KRW 52,056,752, within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased C, as well as to the plaintiff.

1. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, either of the parties to a dispute or of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3.

As an insurer, the Plaintiff entered into a fire insurance contract (hereinafter “instant fire insurance contract”) with respect to the building located in D and E (hereinafter “object of insurance”) in the first place as the insured, with the insurance amount of KRW 60 million, and with the insurance period from September 11, 2012 to September 11, 2017 (hereinafter “instant fire insurance contract”).

B. F leased the subject matter from D and was living together in G and the subject matter of insurance, and was confined to a prison to commit a crime. C from around November 23, 201, while having been known to G from around 2011, she found G and performed alcohol.

C. C, as seen above, left the gas pipeline within the subject matter insured on November 23, 2012, around 04:00, around November 23, 2012, and laid down a fire using a dog. As a result, C’s accident was caused by the loss of the subject matter insured.

D Based on the instant fire insurance contract, D claimed the Plaintiff to pay the insurance money, and accordingly, the Plaintiff paid KRW 52,056,752 as insurance money to D until May 23, 2013.

E. The defendant is the sole heir of C.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the fact that the defendant's sole heir of C's liability for indemnity prohibition is acknowledged, the defendant, unless there are other special circumstances, has a duty to claim for the plaintiff, the insurer who has paid the insurance proceeds, 52,056,752 won, and damages for delay, which are the insurance proceeds, to the plaintiff who has paid the insurance proceeds to D.

B. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s objection to the qualified acceptance, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant’s liability should be limited within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased C, since the Defendant made a qualified acceptance on the inheritance from the deceased C.

According to the evidence No. 1, the defendant's inheritance from the deceased C.