1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The party-related Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an integrated insurance contract with LS (SS) Electric Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ELS Electric”) on the old factory (190 location in the old-si Corporation 190 location in the old-si Corporation) and the man-made factory (643 location in the old-si Corporation 643 location in the old-si Corporation) (hereinafter “former-si factory” and “man-dong factory”).

LS Wire is a company that concludes an electric utility contract with the defendant and receives electricity from the defendant and produces exclusive cables, telecommunications cables, optical cables, etc.

B. On October 2, 2014, around 16:00, an accident under the voltage occurred, which occurred at the old-si factory, 0.085 seconds and 51.38% between 0.135 seconds and 56% between 0.135 seconds for the Inndong factory, and the net voltage was set.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

On December 31, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 124,937,126 with respect to the accident. D.

According to the terms and conditions of the electricity supply contract applicable to the above terms and conditions of the terms and conditions of the electricity supply, the Defendant shall compensate the customer for damages incurred when the Defendant directly responsible for the suspension or use of the electricity supply, and even in the case of the Defendant’s direct liability, the Defendant shall compensate for damages up to three times to ten times the electricity rates during the period of suspension or restriction of the supply, only in cases where the supply has been suspended or restricted at least five minutes

(Article 49-2, Section 1, Section 2) / [Grounds for Recognition] / 49-2, Gap evidence 1, 3-1, 4, 5-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1, 2-1, 2, 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the cause of the claim occurred due to the Defendant’s failure to exhaust gas-conditioning devices (GIS) at the pre-cursors.

The defendant does not have any fact of replacing the inside location of the above device once after the installation of 20 years prior to the 20-year period.