1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. 제1심판결의 인용 이 법원의 판결 이유는, 제1심판결 제4쪽 제1행의 ‘외붜’를 ‘외부’로 고치고, 제5쪽 제16행의 ‘임대인인 D의’를 ‘임대인인 D이’로 고치며, 원고가 이 법원에서 강조하거나 추가하는 주장에 관하여 다음의 '2. 추가 판단'을 추가하는 외에는 제1심판결의 이유와 같으므로 민사소송법 제420조 본문에 의하여 이를 그대로 인용한다.

2. Additional determination

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) did not reveal the specific developments and causes of the fire outbreak; however, considering the following: (a) it was found that the Defendant Union occupied exclusively a hot spring room; (b) it was unreasonable to offset the negligence by failing the lessor’s negligence due to the fire outbreak or the expansion of damages; and (c) the circumstances for the first instance court’s limitation of liability-based reason for the limitation of liability are not acceptable; and (d) it is unreasonable to limit the liability of the Defendant Union for the leased portion; and even if the liability is limited, it is unreasonable to recognize the Defendant Union’s liability by 60%.

(2) In light of the fact that a fire occurred in a hot spring room without any error in the other location of the instant building, it is necessary to presume the management and preservation defect of the leased object of the Defendant Union, which is an exclusive possessor of a hot spring room, and accordingly, to recognize the Defendants’ tort liability for damages incurred to the first floor of the instant building.

B. (1) In a case where the obligor is liable for damages due to nonperformance against the obligee, the obligor may limit the obligor’s liability when there is any negligence on the obligee or when it is necessary to ensure the fairness of the burden of damages.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da37721 delivered on May 15, 2008, etc.). (2) In light of the above legal principles, the instant case was examined and the fire station as recognized by the first instance court.