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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant caused the instant fire by extinguishing the arche with the arche without shutting the entrance of the arche or removing the arche around the arche. The Defendant should be deemed to have violated the Defendant’s duty of care for fire prevention or as a defect in the installation and preservation of the arche of the instant house. Therefore, in relation to the scope of compensation for damages, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages under Article 750 or 758 of the Civil Act. Accordingly, with regard to the scope of compensation for damages, the amount of standing timber damage caused by the instant fire (i.e., KRW 1,166,546,940, KRW 2,098,02,852 (i.e., KRW 189,95,940, KRW 908,000, KRW 1,908,046,912).

B. (1) According to the evidence revealed earlier, the Defendant’s establishment of tort liability under Article 750 of the Civil Act (a) can be acknowledged as follows: (a) the first fire occurred when the arche of the arche of the arche of the arche of the arche of the arche of the arche of the arche of the arche of the arche of the arche of the arche of the arche of the arche of the arche of the arche of the arche of the arche of the arch of the instant case; (b) on February 11, 2018, the date of the instant case, was dried, and the rain or snow was not found on the day; and (c)

The fact that a fire may occur if a arche is not closed in outdoor use, at the entrance of the arche, can be sufficiently known to the general public that a fire may occur if the crocfs are adhered to the surrounding combustible materials. Therefore, the defendant can not close the arche of the arche if the arche is flafed in the state where the arche is flafed into the arche.