1. All of the lawsuits filed by the Plaintiff against Defendant B and C Corporation shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant A is dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 31, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract in the separate sheet stating that the Plaintiff will compensate for the damage to a third party by manufacturing electronic equipment, etc., with the insurance period from June 1, 2013 to May 31, 2014.

(hereinafter referred to as "the insurance contract of this case").

On August 29, 2013, around 09:01, at the F9:01, a fire occurred in a 9-story building and a 1-story bicycle store building adjacent to the building (hereinafter “the above bicycle store building”), and the above bicycle store building was destroyed by a fire, and the outer wall of the above G building was destroyed by a fire of 30 square meters, and the inside 496 square meters was 4,00 square meters.

(hereinafter referred to as "the fire of this case").

At the time of the instant fire, Defendant A operated the bicycle store in the name of “E” in the above bicycle store building, and Defendant B was the owner of the above G building, and Defendant C leased the 1 and 2 floors of the above G building and used them as the office of the Dong branch office of Defendant C&A.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Evidence Nos. 6-1 and 2, and the fact-finding results of this court's fact-finding to the police station in Gyeongbuk-dong, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant B and C are legitimate

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant fire was not caused by air conditioners manufactured by ELB. However, the Defendants asserted that the instant fire was not caused by air conditioners, and sought insurance payment from the Plaintiff, the insurer of the instant insurance contract. Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks confirmation that there was no obligation to pay insurance money to Defendant B and C Corporation in relation to the instant fire.

B. In light of the purport of the entire pleadings as to whether there exists interest in confirmation, and the written evidence Nos. 2 through 4, Defendant B and Defendant C, after the occurrence of the instant fire, did not exceed the insurer of the insurance contract whose name the insured was the Dong branch office of Defendant C&C.