A. On May 2013, Defendant Han-dong Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Han-dong”) leased KRW 4 million monthly rent of KRW 30 million (up to two million per month) to the Plaintiff, along with the part of the part of the neighborhood living facilities on the ground of Namyang-ju, and a part of the container storage (hereinafter “instant burning point for convenience”) in its surrounding areas, as well as the lease deposit money of KRW 30 million (up to two million per month), from June 1, 2013 to 24 months from the lease term. Accordingly, the Plaintiff used the container as the place of business of Eul, the warehouse as the storage facility of the inventory asset for business purpose, and operated the business of issuing and selling the clothes.

B. Around 2014 to repair water leakages generated in the warehouse of the aforementioned part of the container, Defendant Han-dong Co., Ltd. awarded a contract for the repair work of Defendant Han-dong Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Han-dong”). At around 16:40 on July 4, 2014, Defendant Han-dong Co., Ltd., an employee of Defendant Han-dong Co., Ltd., who was the daily worker of Defendant Han-dong Metal, avoided tobacco at the location of the instant storage facility and throw away the cigarette at the waste storage facility without properly confirming that the cigarette cigarette is not cut out, and then laid the cigarette butt at the waste storage facility. On the wind that the first generation of the cigarette butt was moved to the nearby garbageer, and the fire was fast up to the burning point of this case, most of the Plaintiff’s inventory goods stored at the burning point of this case, which were stored at the burning point of this case, were destroyed to an extent that they could have destroyed or lost the value of the goods.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant fire accident” for convenience C.

After that, Defendant B was sentenced to summary punishment for the crime of practicalization, and the fine against the above Defendant was finalized on December 20, 2014.

(The grounds for recognition). 【The District Court 2014 High Court 2014 High-Ma12432 case / [Grounds for recognition]] There is no dispute between the parties, or a part of Gap 1-11, 13-15 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff defendant B, and .