The costs of appeal are assessed against the Intervenor, and the remainder are assessed against the Intervenor.

The judgment below

According to its reasoning, the lower court, based on its reasoning, failed to meet the safety requirements generally required by social norms at the Defendants’ workplace.

In light of the lack of evidence to prove that the Defendants neglected their duty to maintain and manage the above workplace, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendants were liable for damages due to defects in the installation and preservation of structures under Article 758(1) of the Civil Act was not accepted.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on defects in the installation and preservation of structures

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserted that the lower court omitted the judgment as to whether there was causation between the Defendants’ act of installing flame retardation equipment and the expansion of the fire of this case. However, as seen earlier, the lower court erred in the Defendants’ workplace.

As long as the Defendants cannot be deemed to have been negligent, there is no further need to determine whether there exists a causal relationship between the above defect or negligence alleged by the Plaintiff and the expansion of the fire of this case. Therefore, the lower court did not err by omitting judgment, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the Intervenor, and the remainder is assessed against the Plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.