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

A. The Plaintiff is a company running the business of freezing, cooling equipment manufacturing, and the business of manufacturing circular water control systems in the Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government. The Defendant is a corporation established for the purpose of security service business, crime prevention and warning equipment manufacturing and selling business, etc.

B. On February 6, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a security contract with the Defendant on a three-year security contract (hereinafter “instant security contract”) with one unit of the materials and warehouses of the rescue materials and warehouses of the Seojin-gu Seoul District Office (hereinafter “instant warehouse”), monthly service charges of KRW 160,000, and the contract period of the contract.

C. On March 9, 2015, around 22:20, the Plaintiff’s greenhouse for experiment, located adjacent to the instant warehouse, was destroyed by an aesthetic fire (hereinafter “instant fire”). The equipment facilities and part of the instant warehouse (the wall surface, etc. of the vinyl for experiment purposes) were burned down to the instant warehouse.

On March 9, 2015, at around 22:35, the Defendant, at the expense equipment of the warehouse of this case, sent a power signal, and around 22:36, the Defendant sent a telephone call to D who is an employee in charge of the Plaintiff, and notified D of this confirmation.

[Reasons for Recognition] A.1 to 3, 6, each entry in the evidence No. 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendant neglected to perform its duty under the instant security contract by providing the Plaintiff’s employees with a telephone notification indicating the blocking machine on the following day, even though the Defendant has a duty to send the response staff to the site or to have the customer confirm the site, as long as he has caught the power signal on the guard object.

B. Fire, which occurred inside a vinyl for experiment, started from around 23:59 on the date of the accident, and started from around that time, fire was relocated to the warehouse of this case, and thus, the Defendant adhered to the above static signal around 22:35.