1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff C. in excess of the following amount ordered to pay:

1. Of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, the part regarding “1. Basic Facts” and “4. Determination as to Defendant C’s counterclaim” shall be cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s principal claim against Defendant C

A. 1) The point where the fire in this case occurred and the causes of the defect in the installation or preservation of a structure under Article 758(1) of the Civil Act refer to a state in which the installation or preservation of the structure does not have safety ordinarily in accordance with its intended purpose. The safety of the structure should be determined based on whether the installer or the preservation manager of the structure fulfilled his/her duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the risk of the structure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da61602, Feb. 12, 2015). Moreover, the occupant of a structure under Article 758(1) of the Civil Act refers to a person who has the authority and responsibility to repair and manage the structure in order to prevent various accidents that may arise from the defect in the installation or preservation of the structure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da386, Apr. 21, 200).

(2) In light of the fact that there is no possibility of combustion by fire or gas, etc., the fire of this case is presumed to have occurred by the combination line with the line line at the top of the Gmast table. Moreover, it is reasonable to deem that the possessor was as a result of the failure of the possessor to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the danger in relation to the installation and preservation of electric facilities. 2) Gmast and the point of combustion.