1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

1. Claims and the purport of appeal

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment on the allegations made by the Defendants in the court of first instance as stated in the following 2. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The addition;

A. The Defendants’ assertion 1) The instant fire is not caused by Defendant C’s intentional act or gross negligence, but caused Defendant C’s liability to compensate for damages to the Plaintiff, and thus, the amount of compensation should be mitigated in accordance with Article 765 of the Civil Act.

2) The instant fire occurred by burning the facilities within the instant underground roadway, and the said fire was not caused by Defendant C’s intentional or gross negligence, and thus, the amount of compensation should be mitigated in accordance with the Act on Fire Liability.

B. (1) Determination of the claim for reduction of the amount of compensation pursuant to Article 765 of the Civil Act is that Article 765 of the Civil Act, which is determined as to the claim for reduction of the amount of compensation pursuant to Article 765 of the Civil Act, is not intentional or grossly negligent, but where the damage is not caused by an intentional or gross negligence, and the damage is caused by the

Therefore, in order for a person without compensation to be compensated for such a reduction in the amount of compensation, it shall be claimed to reduce the amount by proving the facts prescribed in Article 765 of the Civil Act (see Supreme Court Decision 62Da428 delivered on September 20, 1962). In addition, it is insufficient to recognize that the statement of evidence No. 13 alone is sufficient to recognize that Defendant C suffers a significant impact on his/her livelihood due to the performance of his/her obligation to compensate for damages against the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Therefore, this part of the defendants' assertion is without merit.

2) The Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Fire Caused by the Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Fire Caused by other things.