2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 1/2 is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendants.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. The Plaintiff is a person engaged in the business of manufacturing a small-type cable, and Defendant 1 is a person engaged in the transportation business, etc. with the trade name, “○○-use presses,” and Defendant 2 is a person who conducts the goods storage business with the trade name, “○○ Logistics Storage.”

B. On June 26, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant 1 on a total amount of KRW 1,800,000 with Defendant 1 on a package of the Plaintiff’s household goods, such as household goods, office supplies, office supplies, finished products, samples, raw materials, etc. (hereinafter “instant goods”) and stored until August 26, 200 of the same year, with the Plaintiff’s packaging of all the business goods, such as household goods, etc., and transported them to the sub-Eup (hereinafter “instant first contract”). (hereinafter “instant goods”).

C. On June 26, 2007, Defendant 1 entered into a contract with Defendant 2 to keep the instant goods in a container located in Kuri-si (hereinafter 2 omitted) (hereinafter “instant contract 2”); Defendant 2 stored the instant goods in two containers (one household goods, one business goods, and one business goods) according to the said contract.

D. On July 3, 2007, Defendant 2 instructed Nonparty 2 to install a signboard on the above container (to be kept as a container in light of the degree of smoke, etc.). At around 17:22 of the same day, Nonparty 2, who was in the process of melting in the above container on the same day, destroyed one container containing business goods, and the household goods containing one other container caused damage to milching in the ppuri at the time of fire-fighting.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 2 through 9 (including each number), the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. Defendant 1’s obligation to compensate for damages

According to the above facts, since the goods of this case were destroyed due to the fire and the obligation of Defendant 1 under the contract of this case was impossible to perform, Defendant 1 is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the fire.

As to this, Defendant 1 merely entered into a contract with the Plaintiff on the goods of this case and entered into a separate contract on the storage of the goods of this case with Defendant 2. Thus, Defendant 2 asserted that the fire was not responsible for the storage of the goods of this case. Thus, in light of the overall purport of the statement and pleading of the evidence Nos. 5 and 6 (including each number), it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff entered into a separate contract with Defendant 2 on the storage of the goods of this case by itself as stated in the evidence No. 1, and therefore, the above argument by the above Defendant is without merit.

B. Defendant 2’s liability to compensate for damages

(1) The parties' assertion

(A) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

Defendant 2, as a warehouse business entity, did not fulfill his duty of care to keep the goods in custody, and due to the negligence of Nonparty 2, who could be seen as his employee, and caused the fire to cause property damage to the Plaintiff. As such, Defendant 2 is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 607,415,00, which is equivalent to the goods of this case, as compensation for damages pursuant to Articles 750 through 756 of the Civil Act, and the delay damages therefrom.

(B) Summary of Defendant 2’s assertion

1) The instant fire is not by Defendant 2’s direct negligence.

2) Defendant 2 merely awarded a subcontract to Nonparty 2, and Defendant 2 did not have an employer liability on the ground that the said fire occurred while Nonparty 2 was in a melting work.

3) According to the law on the responsibility for fire-fighting, Article 750 of the Civil Act applies only when there is gross negligence in the case of fire-fighting. Thus, Defendant 2, who did not have gross negligence on the above fire, is not liable for the Plaintiff’s damage caused by the above fire.

(2) Determination

(A) The fact that Defendant 2 instructed Nonparty 2 to install a signboard on a container containing the goods in the process of setting up a signboard on the container using a flame string on the container is considered to be the negligence of fulfilling the ordinary duty of care (if why is, the possibility that goods in the container might be emitted due to adjoining the container at the time of installing the signboard can be easily predicted by the general public).

(B) In addition, Nonparty 2, who is engaged in a melting work and who is in contact with a container, is likely to cause a fire if the flames that occurred at the time of melting the container come into contact with other substances. As such, Nonparty 2 was negligent in checking whether there is any goods that can be put in the container before melting the container and neglecting to take the corresponding safety measures, despite the duty of care to do so.

(C) Generally, there is no relationship between the contractor and the contractor, barring special circumstances, the contractor is liable to compensate for the illegal acts committed by the contractor or his/her employees. However, in the case of the so-called labor contract, such as where the contractor directs a specific act to the contractor or awarding a specific project, the contractor is liable to compensate as the contractor even if he/she is the contractor.

According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that Defendant 2 ordered the above non-party 2 to use the signboard as a labor contract, and there is no reason to view that Defendant 2 paid considerable attention to the appointment and supervision of the above non-party 2 or suffered damage even if he paid considerable attention to the above non-party 2, Defendant 2 shall be liable for the tort by his own negligence and the tort of the above non-party 2 (the fire of this case is eventually caused by the concurrence between Defendant 2's own negligence and the non-party 2's negligence).

(D) The Act on the Responsibility for Fire Caused by Negligence was applied to a decision of inconsistency with the Constitution by the Constitutional Court (see Constitutional Court Decision 2004HunGa25 delivered on August 30, 2007). This part of the above defendant's assertion is without merit.

C. Plaintiff’s damages

In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 10, the plaintiff's property damage amount due to the above fire is determined as KRW 288,372,06 (the above amount of damage is determined based on the manufacturing cost and the value at the time of the accident according to the evaluation standards generally used in non-life insurance by an adjuster specializing in determining the scope of damage). The plaintiff's assertion in this part is justified within the scope of the above recognition.

D. Sub-determination

Therefore, Defendant 1 is liable to compensate for damages due to nonperformance (non-performance). Defendant 2 is liable to pay damages according to each of the following rates of 288,372,066 won to each of the plaintiff as damages due to tort and 288,372,066 won from January 3, 2008 on the record that Defendant 1 was served with a copy of the complaint of this case, and Defendant 2 is liable to pay damages according to each of the rates of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from July 3, 2007, which is the date of the decision of this case, until December 18, 2008, which is the date of the decision of this case, until December 18, 2008, and from the next day to the date of full payment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, each claim against the Defendants against the Plaintiff is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and each remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Kang Jae-chul (Presiding Judge)