1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive property insurance contract with Nonparty C, the victim of the instant fire accident, with the following content.

- Policyholders / Insured: The insurance company's location: D- The insurance period from September 26, 2017 to September 26, 2018: the insurance object / the amount of insurance coverage for the subject-matter of insurance / the amount of insurance coverage for the subject-matter of the subject-matter of insurance 1,368,80,800 public structures of KRW 4,482,000,000 in 24,279,279,000 in machinery of KRW 821,28,80,000 in machinery of KRW 44,80,817,000 in KRW 19,917,00 vehicle transport equipment of KRW 1,859,00 in vehicles of KRW 190,853,000 in vehicles of KRW 205,005,000 in the subject-matter of insurance, 00,000,000 won in the subject-matter of insurance.

B. The Defendant is an insurer who has acquired a comprehensive automobile insurance contract (the insurance period from May 25, 2017 to May 25, 2018, and the limit of KRW 200 million per accident in the case of property compensation) with respect to the freight truck (owner: F, vehicle number: G; hereinafter “instant vehicle”).

C. (1) The date and time of the instant fire occurrence: around 05:00 on March 25, 2018: The cause of the instant fire occurrence occurred: the cause of the occurrence of the instant accident: the cause of the occurrence of the D2-factory 3): the factory building, machinery, movable property, etc. of the said C, which is adjacent to the adjacent area due to a fire in the lower part of the right-hand side of the vehicle loaded at the instant vehicle parked in E within the said Corporation.

On August 31, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,000,000,000 to the insured C, and KRW 500,000,000 on September 28, 2018, and KRW 674,903,000 on October 16, 2018, and KRW 2,174,903,009 on the aggregate, as insurance proceeds.

[Recognizing Facts: Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 10, Eul 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the instant fire had been examined and managed by the operator of the instant vehicle, which is a structure, whether the instant vehicle was defective in the vehicle and its loading after the vehicle was parked as well as in the vehicle.