손해배상(기)
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The reasons why this court should explain this part of the facts of recognition are as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the fact that the court's "the result of fact inquiry on the Kimpo-fire book of the court of first instance" as the result of fact inquiry on the Kimpo-fire book of the court of first instance is the same as stated in the part of Paragraph 1 of Article 3 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. In light of the following facts or circumstances, it is reasonable to view that Gap's liability for damages caused Gap's factory head and fire safety manager Eul, despite the fact that Eul is still carrying a large quantity of products with a high risk of fire much more than ordinary sprinks than normal sprinks because the gas injected in the production process remains, or G actively failed to take measures necessary to prevent fire, such as moving the above sprinks to G at a distance away from G's construction site, or before G begins to start retardant operations, the fire in this case occurred due to gross negligence. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the fire in this case as the employer of the defendant factory and fire safety manager.
① The head of the Defendant factory and the fire safety manager at the Defendant factory confirmed that G is working on the day of the instant fire accident and that G is working on contact.
② On the sti pumps loaded in the vicinity of the place where G was melting operations, G had a very high risk of fire because gas, such as butane and penttan, were left in the process of production, and H was well aware of such fact.
On the other hand, G fire of this case.