1. The plaintiff's primary defendant and the conjunctive defendants' claims are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. A single-story building with a size of 343.2m2m2, total floor area of a wooden prefabricated structure on the G ground in nuclear power plant (hereinafter “H upper-rise building”) was owned by the network I, but I died on August 7, 2013, and the Defendants, the inheritor, were inherited by the Defendants.

(Preliminary Defendant C3/9 Shares, and 2/9 shares, respectively, of the remaining conjunctive Defendants). (B)

The primary Defendant: (a) leased a 198 square meter from the network I to run the wholesale retail store of fish products in the name of “H,” and (b) operated the business of selling salt, etc. with the trade name of “KSA” from the original state-owned building adjacent to the HHA building (hereinafter “KA building”).

C. On February 14, 2013, around 11:14, a fire (hereinafter “instant fire”) occurred within the H upper store, and the accident occurred where the equipment, etc. located within the K upper building was issued.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, 5 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1, 2, and 3, Gap evidence 2, 4, Eul evidence 4, and Eul evidence 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff asserted that the fire of this case occurred due to the following defects existing in the H upper building, which is a structure, and the plaintiff suffered losses, such as the loss of the house equipment and the failure to operate the business. The plaintiff primarily sought damages against the defendant B, who is the possessor of the H upper building, pursuant to the main sentence of Article 758(1) of the Civil Act, and the conjunctive damages against the defendant C, D, E, and F, who is the owner of the H upper building, pursuant to the proviso of Article 758(1) of the Civil Act.

First, the electrical facilities of the HH building were worn out, and the primary Defendant and the primary Defendants (I) did not replace them.

Second, there was a unreasonable use of air conditioners, machinery and heat apparatus, which are located in HH building by the primary defendant.

Third, the inside of the HH building is a wooden plate.