1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Defendant B, which exceeds the following amount ordered to be paid, shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning stated by the court in this part of the basic facts is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is cited pursuant to Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. 1) The term “defect in the installation or preservation of a structure” in the main text of Article 758(1) of the Civil Act refers to the state in which a structure does not have ordinary safety requirements according to its use. In determining whether such safety requirements are met, it shall be determined on the basis of whether the installer or custodian of the structure has fulfilled his/her duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required in light of the social norms in proportion to the risk of the structure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da61615, Feb. 11, 2010). Here, the possessor of the structure refers to a person with the authority and responsibility to manage the structure in order to prevent various accidents that may arise from the installation or preservation defects (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da386, Apr. 21, 200). In full view of the evidence as to the location and cause of the fire in this case, the entire part of the defense or the purport of the defense of the Defendant was met.

1. Attached Form, which is the leased part of Defendant B, among the buildings listed in the real estate list (hereinafter “instant building”).

2. The part which connects each point of the specifications Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 1 are divided into a workroom, an indoor room, and an office with concrete wall structure. The fire in the middle part of a workroom and an indoor room is particularly serious.