1. (1) citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff entered into the instant accident insurance contract with the managing director of the instant apartment as indicated in the judgment of the court below. The Defendant concluded the instant accident insurance contract with C, the head of household No. 101, 1001, 102, 1101, 1102, 1102, 1201, 1301, and 1301, the buildings and household tools of the instant apartment as the fire occurred from No. 101, 101, 101, and 1301, which were the same as the fire that occurred from No. 101, 101, 101, and 1301, which were the victims of the instant accident. (2) After recognizing the fact that the Plaintiff paid the insurance money to the victims pursuant to the instant accident insurance contract, the lower court determined that the instant fire was not clearly revealed to have caused the first adjoining point and its cause, but did not have any direct control and control over the instant fire.

2. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

The defect of installation or preservation of a structure under Article 758(1) of the Civil Code refers to a state in which the structure itself lacks safety to be equipped in ordinary circumstances, and the burden of proof of the existence of the defect lies on the victim.

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 82Meu348, Aug. 24, 1982).

According to these legal principles, in order to recognize liability for damages to the occupant or owner of the instant apartment No. 101, 1001, 1001, pursuant to Article 758(1) of the Civil Act, the instant apartment No. 101, 1001, is ordinarily safe.