1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim extended in the trial is dismissed.

3. Claim for the costs of appeal.

1. The reasons for this court's explanation are the same as the written judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it shall be cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The further determination of this Court

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant fire occurred due to the lack of electricity and the breakdown of electric power.

Even if the maintenance and management of the ventilation is the Plaintiff’s responsibility, the Plaintiff left the Defendant with the construction cost and the Defendant did not work, and thus, the Defendant is responsible for the instant fire.

B. there is insufficient evidence to prove that there was a leakage due to lack of preferential power.

Although the Plaintiff asserted that the signboard was set up by short circuit, according to the testimony of the witness G of the party witness G, since the number of signboards connected to the short circuit circuit was more installed by opening a number of signboards connected to the short circuit circuit, it cannot be deemed a construction due to lack of power, and even if the short circuit was installed, it cannot be deemed as a construction due to a lack of power, which occurred from the electric cable of the signboard installed outside the building, and there is no causal relation with the fire of this case that occurred inside the building.

Next, it cannot be deemed that G entrusts the construction to the Defendant with the entrustment of the construction work (the Plaintiff himself is responsible for the maintenance and management of the culatory machine). (The Plaintiff, as an electrical engineer, is responsible for the maintenance and management of the culatory machine, and G listens to the purport that it is imported by electrical construction from the Defendant on another site and entrusts G with the construction work). Moreover, there is insufficient evidence to support the fact that G is not well equipped with the engine displacement due to its failure to properly implement the culatory construction, and there is a lot of plastic vapors that the Plaintiff knew that the engine displacement has not been well discharged due to the malfunction of the culmatic machine.