1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts and the result of the relevant judgment;

A. C owned the 4th floor factory and office building on the D ground at Silti City, and E (hereinafter “E”) in which C is the representative director, performed the work of manufacturing civil engineering equipment in the above building.

C around November 2002, Around November 2002, a 2nd floor building was extended to the above building.

B. On March 7, 2012, the Plaintiff is an insurer that entered into a fire goods insurance contract regarding the above factories and office buildings owned by E and C.

C. Defendant A had a 2-story factory building on the F-based F-based F-based F-based F-based F-based F-based, adjacent to the building owned by Defendant C, and had been engaged in manufacturing business, etc. on December 30, 1995. Defendant B leased part of the above building owned by Defendant A-owned and operated manufacturing business.

On December 3, 2015, a fire occurred in the part of a household building occupied and managed by Defendant B, and around 04:57 on the same day, Defendant A’s building and C’s building were partially burned, and there was a damage caused by fire, such as machinery, such as cutting machines, dyspule, and dypule, pipes, etc.

(hereinafter “instant fire”). E.

C and E filed a lawsuit against the Defendants against the Incheon District Court Branch Decision 2016Gahap100422, which sought damages from the instant fire. On September 23, 2016, the said court recognized that the Defendant B, the possessor of the household building where the fire occurred, neglected to exercise due care to the defect in the construction or preservation of the said household building, and as long as the Defendant B, the possessor, is recognized as responsible, the Defendant A, the owner, is not liable to compensate for the damages. As long as the liability of the Defendant B is recognized, the Defendant A, the owner, is not deemed liable to compensate for the damages. After calculating the damage of E caused by the instant fire as KRW 574,290,409, and the damages of C as KRW 292,524,238, the scope of the damages of Defendant B, pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Act on the Liability for Fire