1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that operates each factory at the above 662 ground building owned by the Defendant in Ansan-si, the members of Ansan-si, 662-11, the Sungdong-dong 4Da601, and the Defendant is a company that operates each factory at the above 662 ground building owned by the

B. On October 12, 2008, at around the Defendant-owned factory building, a fire occurred, and the Plaintiff’s factory building up to the Plaintiff’s factory building and part of the machinery located therein are on-boarded (hereinafter “instant fire”).

As a result of the investigation of the fire site in this case, the police authorities and the National Institute of Scientific Investigation concluded that the fire in the lower part of the defendant's warehouse building could be presumed to have been burned in the direction of the plaintiff's factory building, but the point and cause of combustion could not be discussed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 3-2, 6, Gap evidence 4-2, 3, 18, 19, 23, 25, 27, 30, 41, Gap evidence 10-2, 5, 6, 7, and Eul evidence 4 and 5-2, 3, 18, 19, 23, 25, 27, 30, 41, and Eul evidence 10-2, 5,

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendant, who is liable for damages, newly constructed a building without permission in the vicinity of the Defendant’s factory building and used it as a warehouse, and the fire of this case occurred during that period. If the Defendant used the building lawfully in accordance with the Building Act and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, various fire-fighting facts and fire alarm devices were installed. In such a case, the fire of this case could have been prevented by fire.

Since the fire of this case occurred due to the defect in the construction and preservation of the above building, which is the building occupied by the defendant, the defendant is liable for damages to the plaintiff pursuant to Article 758 of the Civil Act.

In addition, the Defendant’s employees have caused damages due to the late reporting delay pursuant to Article 756 or 750 of the Civil Act, since they did not report a fire for about seven minutes immediately after the occurrence of the instant fire. Therefore, the Defendant shall compensate for the extended damages due to the delay in reporting pursuant to Article 756 or 750 of the Civil Act.