1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 49,00,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from July 29, 2016 to December 6, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 17, 2013, the Plaintiff is an insurance contract and a fire-generating building C located in the leisure time that the Plaintiff leased and operated by the Defendant between B and B (hereinafter “instant building”).

(D) mutual general restaurants of “D” of the first floor (hereinafter “instant stores”).

2) As to the instant insurance contract, the Plaintiff concluded a non-dividend-based comprehensive insurance contract (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) that covers fire damage on buildings, furnitures, movable property, facilities, etc. and store shutdown damage.

(2) On April 17, 2014, at around 04:30, a fire occurred in the instant store. Around 04:30, the air conditioners and other facilities within the instant building due to the said fire, and air conditioners and air conditioners were destroyed by fire, and the ceiling and floor of the instant building were destroyed by damage.

(hereinafter “instant fire”). B.

As a result of the investigation into the fire cause in the fire station as a result of the fire cause investigation of the fire cause in the fire department, the fire department limited the air-conditioning and air-conditioning units in the store of this case to the air-conditioning units, and with respect to the fire cause, the time when the fire was reduced is two minutes after the leaving of the main place of business, and the fire possibility cannot be completely ruled out. However, the fire possibility cannot be completely ruled out in light of the fact that there are a number of dusts in the entire area, it is presumed that the electric factors caused by the power wave of the squad were presumed to be the electric factors caused by the power failure, and other mechanical factors, gas leakage, human care, etc.

C. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant fire was caused by the policyholder B’s fire, and filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of an insurance claim due to the instant fire. However, the court of first instance (Seoul District Court Decision 2015Gahap10227) was not suspected by the prosecution as to the charge of the general structure, fire prevention, and attempted fraud of B (the non-prosecution disposition was rendered by the court of first instance, and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone alone is sufficiently doubtful or inferred.