1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation as to this case is as follows, except where the plaintiffs added the judgment as set forth in paragraph (2) below as to the assertion emphasized or added by the court of first instance, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. As such, it is cited as it is in accordance

2. The Plaintiffs asserted liability for damages pursuant to Article 758 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act, to the effect that the Defendant’s defect in the installation or preservation of a structure is obviously contributing to the expansion of damage caused by the instant fire, and thus, the Defendant’s defect in the installation or preservation of the structure is ultimately causing damage to the Plaintiffs due to the defect in the installation or preservation of the structure, and that the Defendant’s defect in the installation or preservation of the structure was thereby causing damage to the Plaintiffs, and that the Defendant is liable for damages pursuant to Article 758 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act.

However, it is difficult to see that the plaintiffs' assertion that an abnormal voltage or excessive current has occurred due to the defendant's negligence was proved as above. In light of the fact that the plaintiffs were notified by the defendant's employees prior to the work of changing the voltage (see, e.g., appeal No. 5) and that there was a difference between the time of supplying electricity again to the farm of this case and the time of the fire of this case at least 30 minutes at the time of the occurrence of the fire, the circumstances asserted by the plaintiffs are to protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to their danger as the defendant's installer and custodian.