1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 25, 2011, the Plaintiff: (a) leased a building on land, other than B, G, and one parcel of land owned by B, from August 25, 2011, to August 25, 201; (b) received delivery of the said building around that time; (c) on September 1, 2011, the said site was the location of the place of business; (d) registered the business as D restaurant in the name of the Plaintiff; and (e) operated the restaurant as E and Dong businesses with internal relations.

B. However, around November 26, 2012, around 08:45, E was destroyed by a fire that was destroyed by a boiler room and a fire that was destroyed by a boiler’s 6m2 and a fire that was destroyed by a fire that was laid to a fire-fighting ground where the fire-fighting ground was laid up between the fire-fighting ground and the fire-fighting ground was laid up.

C. The Defendant is an insurer who purchased fire insurance between B and B with regard to the foregoing building with the insured amount of KRW 37,587,280,000. By December 4, 2013, the Defendant paid KRW 8,716,075 to B with the insurance amount of the above fire, and applied for a payment order seeking reimbursement against the Plaintiff and received the payment order for the claim. At that time, the payment order became final and conclusive.

[Ground of recognition] The purport of confessions or evidence Nos. 1 through 17 and the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. (1) On November 5, 2012, the Plaintiff terminated the above restaurant business agreement due to a conflict of opinion between E and E due to a monetary problem, and the right to operate the restaurant was vested in E. However, without changing the name of business registration, a fire occurred while operating the restaurant in the same person without changing the name of business.

(2) Therefore, the above payment order ordering the plaintiff who is not responsible for the above fire to pay the compensation amount is null and void since it is issued against a person who is not the debtor. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the above payment order shall be dismissed.

B. (1) First, the Plaintiff’s assertion related to termination of the partnership relationship is likely to lead to a smooth operation of the partnership by ensuring the trust relationship with other union members E.