1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff suffered property damage equivalent to KRW 77,224,047 due to the fire of this case, and the defendant is obligated to pay the above amount to the plaintiff with the insurance money in accordance with the insurance contract of this case.

B. Defendant 1) There is no objective evidence to prove that the Plaintiff sustained damages equivalent to KRW 77,224,047 due to the instant fire. (ii) Even if the Plaintiff’s insurance claim is recognized, the right to claim the insurance has expired after the lapse of the extinctive prescription.

3. First of all, we examine whether the Plaintiff’s right to claim expires due to the completion of extinctive prescription.

1) Article 662 of the former Commercial Act (amended by Act No. 12397, Mar. 11, 2014) which was applied at the time of the occurrence of the instant fire provides that “The right to claim the insurance amount shall expire if it is not exercised for two years.”

Meanwhile, in a peremptory notice as a reason for interrupting prescription under Article 174 of the Civil Act, where an obligor who received a peremptory notice to perform an obligation requests a creditor to postpone the performance of such obligation on the ground that it is necessary to examine the existence of such obligation, etc., the peremptory notice shall be deemed to continue until the obligee receives a reply. Therefore, it shall be interpreted that the period of six months as provided in the same Article is calculated from the time when the obligee receives a reply from the obligor.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da53198 Decided March 15, 2012). In full view of each of the statements in the Health Team, Gap evidence No. 3, Eul evidence Nos. 3, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 5 as to the instant case 2, the Plaintiff knew the Defendant of the occurrence of the instant fire, and subsequently entrusted the damage adjustment business from the Defendant.