1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 10 million on June 19, 2018.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for a change of the fourth through sixth, the fourth through sixth. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

1) A lessor of a liability for damages is obligated to deliver an object to the lessee and to maintain conditions necessary for the use and profit-making during the lease agreement.

(A) Article 623 of the Civil Act provides, “If a fire is destroyed due to a defect existing in the area controlled and managed by a lessor, such as electrical ship, which forms a part of the building structure, in a case where a house, other building, or a part of a building or a building is delivered by a lessor and is in possession of the leased object, the act of repairing or removing the defect is deemed a lessor’s duty to maintain the leased object in a state necessary for use and profit-making of the leased object.

(2) In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the presumption of paternity, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the presumption of paternity, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the presumption of paternity, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the presumption of paternity, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the presumption of paternity, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

I would like to say.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da51013, 51013, 51020, Jan. 13, 2006, etc.). Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by Gap 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, and Eul 2 through 6, the results of the fact inquiry and the purport of the entire pleadings on the Cheongdo Fire Station, and the purport of the entire arguments, the following facts and circumstances are considered.