1. The Defendant’s KRW 13,210,573 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from May 14, 2015 to April 22, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, who runs non-life insurance business, concluded an insurance contract (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with Nonparty D, who operates the instant building in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant building”), and with Nonparty D, the facilities and medical instruments and appliances (insurance amounting to KRW 70 million) and household fixtures (insurance amounting to KRW 30 million) as the subject matter of insurance, to compensate for losses caused by fire from December 15, 2014 to December 15, 2015 (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

B. On February 4, 2015, the Defendant entered into a contract to lease the instant building 201, 202 for two years from March 1, 2015 to February 28, 2017, as the representative of E who sells health assistance foods, and was delivered the said subparagraph 201 in advance and engaged in artificial construction, such as construction in remote areas around February 10, 2015.

C. On February 25, 2015, around 19:15, a fire occurred in a hot spring room within 201 of the instant building (hereinafter “instant fire”). Around 16,299,464 won on various medical instruments and appliances within 301 of the instant building, where the instant fire occurred, as a result of a fire-fighting water for the postponement of fire and the extinguishment of fire, the damage was incurred to KRW 22,017,642 in total, and KRW 22,017,62,627,62,62,62,62, and in the inside electric equipment and facilities of CCTV, etc., the total amount of KRW 3,075,782, and KRW 22,017,622 on the place where the instant fire occurred.

The Plaintiff paid KRW 22,017,622 to Nonparty D, in total, up to May 13, 2015, with fire damage insurance proceeds under the instant insurance contract.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute between the parties, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The gist of the party’s assertion is that the fire in this case, which the Defendant occupied and used, was caused by the expansion of combustible materials in the first loading stand in the sugar room in the building 201, which was installed in the defendant’s possession and use, and thus, the fire in this case was destroyed by the expansion of combustible materials. Thus, the defendant is the possessor of the building 201 and the foundation for the