손해배상(기)
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. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. The Plaintiff’s alleged fire occurred in the first Defendant’s container or household building for main use, and moved to the Plaintiff’s container operation, tent, workplace, etc.
The above fire is caused by the Defendant’s installation of a main room in a container, which is an unauthorized building, and installation of a plastic cable to be exposed to the outside of the factory without the electric wires, and the use of electric appliances such as electricity, air conditioning, cooling, TV, etc. connected to the container throughout the entire area of the container by using electric wires such as electric wires connected to the container.
Therefore, inasmuch as the Defendant neglected the duty of care to prevent fire, thereby causing a fire, and thereby causing damage to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages pursuant to Article 758 of the Civil Act, inasmuch as he/she actually controlled the containers, etc., which are structures, pursuant to Article 750 of the Civil Act or structures, in order to prevent various accidents that may arise from the installation or preservation defects, even though he/she was responsible for the right to repair and manage the structures, he/she failed to perform the duty of care to the extent that is generally required by social norms in proportion to the risks of the structures
3. Once the Plaintiff’s above assertion is accepted, first of all, it is recognized that the above fire occurred in the Defendant’s container, etc. as alleged by the Plaintiff, and it was transferred to the Plaintiff’s container, etc.
The fire officer and the police who investigated the fire site as shown in Gap evidence 2 and 6 are the defendant's point of origin.