1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the part which was partially dismissed as set forth in paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. The phrase "this court" in the last sentence of the third part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be added to "the first instance court".

The 6th and 6th of the judgment of the first instance shall be written by "the plaintiff" as "the defendant B".

The 7th to 8th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth.

[2] In addition, according to the above evidence, the fire extinguishment by Defendant B’s employee F’s report was prevented, and the spread of the fire in this case was not spread to the entire hospital of this case. Thus, the fire in this case’s second floor of the hospital of this case appears to have been spread.

On the other hand, the fire of this case was derived from the warehouse of this case illegally extended by Defendant B for personal convenience, and even if it was possible to anticipate the possibility of fire in the warehouse of this case, Defendant B used the sandd position panel with the strings of the strings of burning easily while installing the warehouse of this case, and did not take measures to prevent fire and prevent the spread of fire such as strings and fire alarm devices.

Considering these circumstances, it is reasonable to limit Defendant B’s liability for damages against the Plaintiff to 80% of the damages incurred.

The 11th to 17th of the 11th of the judgment of the first instance shall be followed as follows.

[2] The instant fire occurred on June 1, 2016, and the first instance appraiser H was provided by the Plaintiff, and the income statement of June and July 2016 of the instant hospital, which was provided by the Plaintiff, was not audited by an external accounting firm, and thus, revised according to the generally accepted corporate accounting standards.