1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

In this case where the Plaintiff cited the judgment of the first instance basically claims the same as that of the first instance court in the trial, this court’s reasoning is as follows, in addition to adding the following judgments as to the Plaintiff’s assertion of additional return in the trial of the first instance, and therefore, it is identical to the entry in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance.

further determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the logistics warehouse of this case does not have fire protection measures required by social norms as follows, and the plaintiff's building was destroyed by fire spread, and thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for the plaintiff's damages.

The logistics warehouse of this case was originally used as a Class I neighborhood living facility (retail store), and the defendant used it as a household warehouse by extending its inside to two floors without permission, and changing its use without permission.

The Defendant installed and used the electric facilities without undergoing a pre-use inspection of the Electric Utility Act in the process of expanding the same without permission.

In addition, although the logistics warehouse of this case consists of a sandd position panel that is vulnerable to fire, the defendant did not install an emergency warning system with a total floor area of not less than 400§³ of fire fighting properties, and did not install fireproof structures and sprinklers to prevent the spread of fire at all.

Furthermore, at the time of the occurrence of the instant fire, the Defendant’s employees were engaged in contact work.

B. Even in cases where a fire occurred due to a cause other than a defect in the installation or preservation of a structure or where the cause of a fire is not revealed, if a fire was spread due to a defect in the installation or preservation of a structure, it can be deemed that the defect in the installation or preservation of a structure has become one of the joint causes of a fire accident (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da61602, Feb. 12, 2015). However, Article 758 of the Civil Act.