1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 4, 2013, the Plaintiff purchased electric walls of “D” through “E,” an online site (hereinafter “instant electric pole”), and used them in “G,” which is the main cause of the Plaintiff’s failure to operate the Plaintiff on the F and the first floor of Gangdong-gu Seoul (hereinafter “U.S.”). Defendant C, with Defendant B’s permission, registered the instant electric box under Defendant B’s trade name with “D,” and manufactured the instant electric box, and Defendant B worked as Defendant C’s employee.

B. On November 3, 2016, the instant fire occurred from the instant guard around 10:25 (hereinafter “instant fire”) and the fire, such as a fire, a massage, beauty art device, and a scambling tool, etc. inside the fire was destroyed.

C. On November 7, 2016, the “Legal Safety Appraisal Report” state to the effect that the “legal assessment report of the National Science Investigation Institute” is “it is distinguishable from the inner line of the boundary of the instant electrical base as the cause of combustion.” The report on the internal line of November 8, 2016 prepared by the Seoul Gangseodong Police Station stated to the effect that “the cause of fire is deemed to have been ignited from the inner line of the instant electrical base on the grounds of fire.”

The assessment of the fire accident of H, Sept. 14, 2017, the amount of damages of the non-appellant of this case is indicated as follows.

1.4.As a result of damage assessment, the facts that there is no dispute over (based on recognition) 23,547,81 / [the grounds for recognition], A2, 3, 4, 55, 114, 598 aggregate of 15,550,727 inventory assets 484,916 inventory assets 2,397,640 total of 23,547,81

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant fire occurred due to the lack of safety, such as the cutting-out of ships inside the instant electric ter, etc., which led to the Plaintiff’s loss of KRW 23,547,881.

Therefore, Defendant C and Defendant B indicated as the manufacturer of the instant electricalter jointly and severally with the Plaintiff.