손해배상(기)
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
The reasons for the court's explanation of this case are as follows, except for the addition of the judgment of the plaintiffs to the grounds for the argument emphasized in the trial of the court of first instance, and therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The Plaintiffs asserts to the effect that the Defendant’s replacement of the instant vehicle base caused knife a knife of the fashion pipe connected to the racker base, and that the instant fire occurred due to the occurrence of the rackers leaked.
However, in the instant fire site, there was no particular phenomenon to predict the fact that the engine is being leaked, such as the low output of the vehicle while driving the instant vehicle immediately before the occurrence of the fire, or the fact that the erroneous warning, etc. was occupied.
The plaintiffs asserted that, even though it was not possible to distinguish the mixed oil from the floor of the main driving line of the instant vehicle, it cannot be readily concluded that there was no cumulative oil solely on the ground that the ozone was destroyed by the air and did not fall into the bottom of the instant vehicle.
However, as alleged by the plaintiffs, even if the defendant saw a tiny pipe fV in the process of replacing the racker of the vehicle in this case, it is only recognized that the engine racks the possibility of being leaked out of the outside, and further, it should be recognized that the engine racks the oil or dust and the fire occurred in the vehicle in this case, and there is no evidence to acknowledge such fact.
In addition, there is no dispute between the parties that the first place of fire occurrence of the instant vehicle is near the engine as chief below, but the plaintiffs.