1. The portion of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. The reasons why this court should explain concerning this part of the basic facts are the second part of the judgment of the court of the first instance. The defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Co., Ltd.").

(B) The Defendant’s amendment of the “Defendant Company” to the “Defendant” and the “Defendant Company”, each of the 3 B B B B below, to the “Defendant,” and the “10 million won” in the 3 B B, to the “10 million won (the insurance purchase price for the leased object of this case is KRW 10 million)” and the “compensation for fire liability within the limit of KRW 100 million as the special terms and conditions,” and deleted the “102,41,712 won” in the 4 D 5 B as “102,41,712 won” as “10,141,712 won,” and cited it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, on the ground that the judgment in the first instance is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment except for the amendment to the “102,141,712 won.”

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. In order to prevent the occurrence or spread of a fire due to the original parts, sphones, sand position panels, etc. used for the division of buildings used for the production of human resources, the Defendant kept human form or sphones, etc. in the refluoring or refluoring in the refluoring or refluoring, and had the partitions by using the same shot or incombustible materials as the steel plates instead of the sandd position panel, and did not take such measures despite the need to install automatic fire extinguishing devices. Accordingly, the instant fire caused the damage that the instant building was destroyed by the fire.

Therefore, the Defendant, as a lessee, is liable for damages incurred to D, a lessor due to nonperformance of the duty to return the leased object of this case and nonperformance of the duty to perform the contractual duty of care under the lease of this case, and is liable for damages incurred to D and H pursuant to Article 750 of the Civil Act due to such negligence.

In addition, the leased object of this case does not meet the safety requirements that a normal warehouse should have with respect to the occurrence and expansion of fire as mentioned above.