1. Defendant B’s KRW 43,837,706 as well as 5% per annum from January 8, 2019 to October 30, 2019.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 5, 2017, the Plaintiff concluded an insurance contract with D and Busan Shipping Daegu E & H (hereinafter “Plaintiff shop”) with respect to the amount of KRW 20,000,000,000, including buildings with the limit of fire damage compensation, facilities, and fixtures, etc.

B. Defendant C is the owner or lessee of the I (Eho Lake J; hereinafter “Defendant shop”) in the vicinity of the Plaintiff shop, and Defendant B is the person who leases the Defendant shop and operates the frequency thereof.

C. A fire occurred on October 30, 2018 at the Defendant shop, around 04:30, around 2018, and as a result, the Plaintiff store and its facilities, fixtures, etc. were destroyed by fire.

(hereinafter “instant fire”). D.

On January 7, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 15,641,214 with insurance proceeds, such as facilities and fixtures, to the lessee of the Plaintiff shop, and KRW 28,196,492 with the insurance proceeds of the building, respectively, to the owner of the Plaintiff shop, and KRW 43,837,706 in total.

E. A written opinion of the Korea Electrical Safety Corporation states that “The first generation of fire in and around the cooling house located in the main place of the Defendant shop shall be presumed to have destroyed the surrounding combustible materials, but it shall be presumed that the fire was made by the U. S. S. source around the point of origin because it is difficult to prove clearly the cause of fire fighting.”

F. Regarding the instant fire, the Busan Coast Guard completed internal investigation on the ground that “There is no proviso to discover a suspected fire and fire-fighting, considering the fact that the fire was presumed to have occurred due to an unsatisfying cause in the vicinity of the Defendant store,” and that “ there is no proviso to discover a suspected fire and fire-fighting.”

【Defendant B’s ground for recognition: The fact that there is no dispute over Defendant C under Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act (by service by public notice); entries in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply); and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the claim against Defendant B, Defendant B, the occupant of the Defendant shop, is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 758(1) of the Civil Act.