1. The defendant's KRW 53,678,724, and KRW 4,00,000 to the plaintiff Eul, and KRW 1,00,00,00 to the plaintiff C, D, and E respectively.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant, the owner of the 1st or 5th underground floor of Daegu Northern-gu G (hereinafter “instant building”), is a person who conducts the business, such as the sale of car sets, using the trade name “H,” from the 1, 2, and 1st underground floor of the instant building.

B. On June 7, 201, at the Defendant’s work room located on the first floor of the instant building, the postponement of fire, etc., which occurred due to the fire, which was presumed to have been caused by electrical factors around 10:35, was spread to the instant building.

(hereinafter “instant fire”). C.

At the time of the occurrence of the instant fire, Plaintiff A, who was receiving education on the third floor of the instant building at the time of the occurrence of the instant fire, attempted to escape through the third floor window in order to escape from the instant fire site, fell on the first floor floor and sustained bodily injury, such as the closure of the alley.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). D.

Plaintiff

B Husband, Plaintiff C is Plaintiff A’s husband, Plaintiff D, and E are Plaintiff A’s children.

[Ground of recognition] The absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the result of the inquiry into the chief of Daegu Northern District Department of this Court

2. Liability for damages;

A. In addition to the purport of the oral argument as a result of the inquiry into the fact of the fact-finding conducted by the court on the Daegu Northern Northern District chief of the fire station, the Defendant did not properly manage inflammable substances and caused the instant fire, and thus, the Defendant was liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for damages in accordance with tort liability, on the ground that the Defendant sustained injury caused by the instant accident, as seen earlier, as the Plaintiff A did not properly manage inflammable substances, even though it was anticipated that it was difficult to expand burning and extinguish the fire.

(b)No. 1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 4-1, Eul evidence 5-1, each entry of No. 5-1, and this Court.