1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The court's explanation of this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following modifications or additions. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The following shall be added with respect to the assertion of liability as a possessor of a structure at the bottom of two sides of the judgment of the first instance.

Article 758(1) of the Civil Act states that a structure fails to meet safety requirements ordinarily required for its use. In determining whether such safety requirements are met, the determination shall be made based on whether the installer or custodian of the structure fulfilled his/her duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the risk of the structure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da1921, May 23, 2013). The burden of proving the existence of defects in the installation or preservation of the structure lies on the victim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2017Da218208, Aug. 18, 2017; 2019Da22522, Jul. 19, 2019).

There is no evidence to recognize "no evidence exists to recognize" three pages of the decision of the first instance court.

원고는 피고가 뻥튀기 가게 내부의 자재 등을 잘못 관리하였다는 취지로 주장하나, 정작 이 사건 화재 당시 위 자재 등이 구체적으로 어느 위치에 놓여서 어떻게 관리되고 있었는지 알 수 있는 어떠한 객관적인 자료도 제출하지 못하고 있다.

On the other hand, the evidence No. 6 submitted by the plaintiff to the court of the first instance was already presented to the court of the first instance.