The Plaintiff is the owner of the land building D in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff’s building”), and Defendant B is the owner of the land building E in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, and Defendant C is the person who operated the above building with the trade name “F” from the first floor of the building.

On November 26, 2017, at around 23:42, fire occurred inside the instant store.

(hereinafter) The Plaintiff asserted the following facts: (a) there was no dispute; (b) No. 1 and 2 evidence; and (c) the purport of the entire pleadings by the Plaintiff; and (d) the Plaintiff did not install the minimum safety facilities necessary to operate the store of this case, thereby causing damage to the Plaintiff’s building; (c) accordingly, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable for damages to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 758(1) of the Civil Act, pursuant to Article 758(1) of the Civil Act.

An accident caused by a defect in the installation or preservation of a structure that occurs in the liability for damages against Defendant C is not referred to only where the defect in the installation or preservation of a structure occurs, but also where the defect in the installation or preservation of a structure is one of the common causes of the accident, the damage caused by an accident shall be deemed to have occurred due to the defect in the installation or preservation of a structure.

In addition, even if a fire has occurred due to a cause other than the defect in the installation or preservation of a structure, or where the cause of a fire has not been revealed, if the fire occurred due to the spread of the defect in the installation or preservation of a structure, the defect in the installation or preservation of a structure can be deemed as one of the joint causes of a fire

(see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da61602, Feb. 12, 2015). The following circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensively taking account of the entire purport of the pleadings in the statement No. 2 of the evidence No. 2, the point of extinguishment of the instant fire, are the stores of this case.