1. The Defendant’s KRW 58,521,301 as well as annual 5% from August 11, 2015 to January 22, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract between B and B, which is “undividend Samsung Fire Family Comprehensive Partnership” with the following content:

The contract number C contractor/insured B insurance period from January 11, 2012 to January 11, 2017 (for 5 years from January 201, 2017) the basic coverage of insurance products, death of injury, bodily injury, aftermath disability, injury and general aftermath disability, the damage amounting to KRW 100,000,000,000 for fire and collapse, and the liability of compensation for fire and property, additional KRW 300,000,000;

B. The defendant is the plaintiff B's children.

On February 18, 2014, around 14:15, the Defendant was discharged from a building and a household with a fire that was caused by a fire that was put in a sofa by drinking alcoholic beverage in W, Esitts after drinking alcohol, and attaching a fire to his own Titts.

(hereinafter “instant fire”). C.

In relation to the instant fire, the Defendant was sentenced on August 14, 2014 to imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of destroying the structure of the suspender building under Article 164(1) of the Criminal Act from the branch court of Suwon District Court, and the said judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

(Yiju District Court 2014 Gohap13). The defendant asserted mental and physical disability in criminal procedure, but did not accept it.

On August 11, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 58,521,301 insurance money with respect to the instant fire to B.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Article 682(2) of the Commercial Act limits the insurer’s right of subrogation by stipulating that “if the right of the policyholder or the insured against a third party is against the family living together with the policyholder or the insured, the insurer is not entitled to acquire the right of subrogation.”

However, the proviso of the same paragraph recognizes the exception that “if damage was caused intentionally by his/her family member, this shall not apply.”

According to the above facts, the defendant, who is the insured's child, was punished for the crime of fire-prevention of the present building by intentionally committing a fire in relation to the fire of this case.

The Plaintiff is the Commercial Act.