1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the judgment against the Defendants exceeding the money ordered to be paid below is revoked.

1. The fact of recognition is that the Plaintiff, among the buildings with the 16th and the 5th underground floors located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant building”), operated a soup set of the trade name “F” on the 2nd and the 4th floor of the building (hereinafter “F”) and that concluded a soup set of the instant soup and the fire insurance contract for the part of the soup set of the instant building and its internal facilities and equipment as the insured. The Defendants are G employees.

On October 7, 2014, the Defendants: (a) carried out strawing and cutting operations to reinforce letters supporting the strawer in the 4th floor machinery room of the instant building; (b) there was a fire in which the inside of the machine room was destroyed by fire, sprinking and cutting operations inside the machine room to protect the pipes inside the machine room.

(hereinafter “instant fire.” On December 29, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,002,00 as the damage investigation cost to Taeyangyang Co., Ltd. on December 29, 2014, and KRW 86,575,807 in total by paying KRW 86,57,807 as the repair cost of the soup bank to G on December 30, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5, Gap evidence No. 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The occurrence and scope of the Defendants’ liability for damages

A. According to the facts acknowledged as the occurrence of a fire and the evidence of the above macroscopic evidence, the Defendants, who were engaged in oxygen entertainment and cutting, could have sufficiently anticipated that the flames emitted from the process of the operation of the instant fire at the time of the occurrence of the fire would be scattered around the mountain, and thus, at the same time, did not properly take safety measures such as covering the safety board to prevent the flames from spop out, and did not perform the work without properly doing so. Since the fire in this case occurred due to the negligence of the Defendants, the Defendants, as joint tortfeasor, are the instant fire to G.