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

A. Defendant B is an owner of 407.6 square meters of reinforced concrete building 407.6 square meters on the ground of the land of Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-si and is residing in the second floor of the above building. Defendant C leased the first floor of the above building and operates the restaurant in the name of “F” (hereinafter “instant restaurant”), and Defendant D Co., Ltd is an insurer who concluded fire insurance with Defendant C.

The Plaintiff is operating a motor vehicle repair plant and warehouse with the trade name of “A” from the 441 square meters of a 1st floor building and a 441 square meters of a building in the Seoyang-gu Seoul Metropolitan City G land located in the instant restaurant (a factory of 395 square meters and 46 square meters of a store; hereinafter “Plaintiff’s building”).

The structure of each building above is as follows:

B. At around 21:50 on December 16, 2016, a cause unexpected fire (hereinafter “instant fire”) occurred near the instant restaurant and the Plaintiff’s building, and the said part of each of the instant buildings and the interior equipment was destroyed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries or images of Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant C and the lessor (owner) were the lessee of the instant restaurant did not take appropriate measures, such as frequently checking and repairing the distribution line, such as the internal ventilation of the said restaurant, and left the boat alone for a long time and became a joint line, and the fire of this case occurred, and thereby, the Plaintiff’s building and the interior collection equipment, etc. were burned, and thus, the said Defendants and the Defendant D Co., Ltd (the insurer of the Defendant C) are jointly and severally liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the fire.

B. Fact-finding 1) The instant fire was first launched before December 16, 2016, and it is recognizable that the postponement from the upper part of the building above the building above the building above the 21:50 square meters in CCTV (see evidence B(5)) of the Plaintiff’s CCTV on the 21:50 square meters. 2)