1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim as to the above cancellation part is dismissed.

1. The underlying facts and the grounds for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the parties’ assertion are as stated in the part on “1. Basic Facts” and “2. Party’s assertion” of the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance. Therefore, they are cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Determination

A. The defect in the installation or preservation of a structure under Article 758(1) of the Civil Act means that the structure itself lacks ordinary safety requirements, and the burden of proof as to the existence of the defect lies on the victim.

In addition, whether the installer or the keeper of the relevant structure fulfilled his/her duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the risk of the relevant structure ought to be determined on the basis of whether the installation or preservation of the relevant structure fulfilled his/her duty to take protective measures in proportion to the risk of the relevant structure.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da27022 delivered on October 10, 1997, etc.). B.

According to the above legal principle, in order to recognize liability for damages to the defendant, who is the possessor of the first floor of the warehouse of the non-party company, pursuant to Article 758 (1) of the Civil Act, the fact that the part occupied by the defendant or a specific structure installed inside the non-party company's warehouse was in a state of failing to meet the safety requirements for ordinary use should be proved first, and the burden of proof

As seen earlier, the Seoul Southern District Police Agency concluded that the fire site of this case was discovered to have been burned out on the right side of the warehouse of the non-party company owned by the defendant after the identification of the fire site of this case at the Seoul Southern District Police Agency. However, considering the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 21, Eul's evidence Nos. 6, and witness H's testimony, the point is presumed to be the first floor of the non-party company's warehouse occupied by the defendant.