A. (1) On January 14, 2016, around 21:16, a fire occurred in the warehouse-type tent located outside the five-story building (hereinafter “DPC bank”) No. 112 “DPC bank” (hereinafter “DPC bank”) (hereinafter “C building”), which is the five-story building located in Ansan-gu, Ansan-si, Ansan-si (hereinafter “the instant PC bank”), and all the instant PC bank was on board, and thereafter, the C building was burned to various facilities of the fifth floor, thereby damaging heat and its sound.

(2) The instant PC room owner was installed with the instant PC room business owner, and was in custody of the PC room, such as gas and oil distress, etc. inside and outside, but the instant PC room business owner was in custody of the PC room. However, the instant PC room business owner’s PC room business owner was able to take advantage of the sound he knows in the rear side and reported a fire in the tent.

(3) The analysis of the cause of the instant fire was presumed to have been carried out rapidly through the toilets and the instant PCs, etc. located adjacent to the fire, and concluded that the electric scamstains were distinguished from the outer wall of the toilet near the point where the fire occurred, but it cannot be directly determined as a heat source, and that the possibility of the scams caused by human scams cannot be entirely ruled out, and thus, the cause cannot be determined.

According to this, it is difficult to know all of the heat sources, the factors of combustion, the first cargo, and the equipment related to combustion, and the combustion expansion is an inner object of the tent and the burning expansion is a sudden combustion of the combustible materials.

(4) After analyzing the visual images of surrounding CCTVs, the Ansan Police Station concluded that there is no possibility of fire prevention against the fire of this case, and concluded that the possibility of fire caused by electric wires cannot be ruled out, while the causes of fire are not known.

B. The relationship between the parties (1) E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) was operating the F agency’s “F agency” in 102 and 103, and the Plaintiff is the Nonparty Company.