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. Basic facts

A. The relationship between the parties (1) The Defendant is the owner of a building of 363.71 square meters in light of C’s ground level, 363.71 square meters in light of the lusium and plant-related facilities, and of a building of 300.00 square meters in light of the lusium and plant-related facilities (hereinafter “first building”), and a building of d ground reinforced concrete structure, reinforced concrete structure, and a building of 197.4 square meters in two lusiums of Pyeongtaek-si, Nam-si, Namyang-si, and adjacent thereto (hereinafter “second building”).

(2) A corporation E is a corporation that leases a second building from the Defendant and operates a restaurant.

(3) The Defendant’s spouse B is the inside director, who is the representative of corporation E, and the Defendant actually operates the above company.

B. On June 17, 201, the Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract (1) with B as follows: (a) ensuring the fire fine of KRW 20 million in the insured B; and (b) ensuring the fire in the F cafeteria building located in Namyang-si, Namyang-si, the Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with the content that guarantees the fire in the F cafeteria building located in D (such as KRW 200 million in the building, KRW 10 million in the facility, KRW 50 million in the house fixtures, KRW 5 million in movable property, KRW 20 million in the store shutdown damage, KRW 20 million in the store shutdown damage, etc.).

On the other hand, the contract owner of the instant insurance contract was changed from March 5, 2012 to E.

(2) On January 1, 2011, E Co., Ltd. has leased No. 2 building from Defendant to KRW 100 million and operated it as a restaurant.

C. On January 4, 2013, around 05:30 on January 4, 2013, the Defendant caused a fire on the first building in which the place of business was operated by the Defendant, and up to the second building adjacent to the building, the fire was destroyed by the fire and the damage was caused by the fire that was destroyed by the buildings, fixtures, fixtures, movables, etc.

(2) On January 31, 2013, the Plaintiff claimed insurance proceeds from the Plaintiff. By March 13, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 33,073,042 to the Defendant, the owner of the second building, and KRW 102,837,391, such as facility damage, to E, respectively.

recognized.