1. As to KRW 49,816,006 and KRW 34,01,706 among the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 49,81,000 from January 25, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. 1) The Plaintiff is a building located in Yongsan-gu, Seoyang-si (hereinafter “instant building”).

On May 4, 2016 through May 4, 2021, the Defendant concluded an insurance contract with respect to the following contents: (a) a unit contractor (insured) insurance coverage period: (b) a fire damage of KRW 80 million [fire of KRW 40 million [the maximum amount of fire of KRW 50 million [the fire of KRW 50 million]; (c) a comprehensive property damage insurance (movable Property Loss of KRW 10 million]; (d) a comprehensive property damage insurance (movable Property Loss of KRW 10 million; (e) a unit E E No. H H H of KRW 200,000 KRW 3 million from July 12, 2016 to July 12, 2021; and (e) a fire of KRW 30 million [the fire of KRW 50 million [the fire of KRW 50 million]; and (e) a fire of KRW 300,000,000 [the fire of KRW 371,316.37 billion.

B. However, on December 13, 2016, at the laundry station operated by the Defendant, the mechanical cause and the fire presumed to be worn-out (hereinafter “instant fire”) occurred, which occurred, and the burning damage occurred under subparagraphs D, E, K, and H of the instant building.

C. The Plaintiff paid insurance money with respect to the instant fire as follows.

The fact that the amount of a person who was paid the payment date of a lake (won) No. D on February 20, 2017, 6,750,940 P (D lessor) 3,225,860 E on February 20, 2017, No. 34,01,706 H on January 24, 2017, No. 14,890,000 K on January 26, 2017, No. 937,50 L9,816,006 [based on recognition] no dispute exists, Gap evidence No. 1 through 4 (including each number, including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments.

2. According to the allegations and the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff money equivalent to the insurance money that the plaintiff incurred from the fire of this case and paid as indemnity money.

In this regard, the defendant paid to the insured, etc. more money than the actual loss, so it is limited to the actual loss amount.