1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation as to the instant case is written in accordance with paragraph (2). The reasoning of the court’s explanation is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for addition of Paragraph (3) to the judgment as to the allegations made by the Defendants in the trial. Thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2. Parts to be dried;

A. On the 2nd page 9 to 10 of the first instance judgment, the term “the steel-frame building located in the YF located in the Hamnam-gun in the Hamnam-gun” is deemed to read “the steel-frame building located in the Hamnam-gun in the Hamnam-gun (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On the 2nd page of the judgment of the first instance, the “H (former Parcel Number F)” in the 13th sentence is changed to “F (former Parcel Number I) of the Y (former Parcel Number F) in the YY in the 13th sentence.

C. On the 2nd page of the first instance judgment, the Defendant’s “Defendant” in the 18th sentence is regarded as “D”.

In the second part of the judgment of the first instance, the term "facility damage" in the 19th part of the judgment of the first instance shall be improved as "establishment damage".

E. Part 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Seoul Central District Court in Part 5 is being "Seoul Central District Court".

F. On the 3rd to 15th of the first instance judgment, the 3rd to 14th of the said judgment shall be followed as follows.

G. D A died on May 8, 2010, Defendant A is the spouse of Defendant D, and Defendant B and Defendant C are the children of Defendant B and Defendant C.

3. Additional determination

A. The Defendants asserted that, since it is difficult to view that D had known or could have known in advance the possibility of the outbreak of foreign material due to the inflow of foreign material into, or the incomplete contact with, the contact outlet for electric power source equipment presumed to have been inflammable, the Plaintiff cannot file a claim for damages against D, and even if D’s liability is recognized, the amount of damages should be reduced in accordance with Article 3 of the Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by the Whole Amendment of May 8, 2009, and E receives fire insurance money by forging the lease contract as it leases the building of this case to D.

B. Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the party concerned has res judicata, the party concerned.