Defendant C shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 160,598,046 and KRW 1147,316,277 among them, from February 19, 2016 to January 18, 2018.

A. The Plaintiff produced and sold Buddhist goods, etc. with the trade name “E” in Kimhae-si D.

B. Defendant B operated the secondhand shop (hereinafter “G”) with the trade name “G” from Kimhae-si F.

C. On February 18, 2016, Defendant C visited G on February 18, 2016, to select plastics in a way to determine whether it is possible to reproduce plastics by being in charge of smelling the smell of a smoke that occurs after putting him. D.

On February 18, 2016, at around 10:30 on February 18, 2016, a fire from G building was moved to the Plaintiff’s workplace and tanks, fire, gold, etc. that were located in the Plaintiff’s workplace and in the Plaintiff’s workplace.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant fire”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 4 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the fire of this case occurred after Defendant C’s selection of plastics by negligence that the Defendants did not completely extinguishing plastics. As such, the Defendants, as joint tortfeasor, are jointly and severally liable to compensate for the Plaintiff’s damages amounting to KRW 526,604,133 [affirmative damages amounting to KRW 245,527,129, KRW 39,213,408 ( KRW 22,473,558, KRW 22,136,281, KRW 285, KRW 230,55, and KRW 188).

B. Defendant C’s assertion that the Defendant C was not liable to compensate for losses of plastics, and instead did not cause the fire of this case by leaving the strings, leaving the strings, leaving the strings, and neglecting the strings. The amount and period of lost income and the calculation of consolation money out of the amount of damages claimed by the Plaintiff is not reasonable. Even if Defendant C is recognized as liable to compensate for damages, the amount of compensation should be reduced in accordance with the law on the responsibility for realization.

C. Defendant B’s assertion that the instant fire occurred due to Defendant C’s intentional or gross negligence, and thus, Defendant B is not liable for damages. The Plaintiff is not liable for damages.