1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, parts of the judgment against Defendant B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J are modified as follows:

Defendant B, C, and.

1. The reasons for this part of the basic facts are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether liability for damages arises;

A. 1) With respect to the Defendant lessor’s duty to compensate for damages, in a lease agreement, the lessor assumes the duty to maintain the leased object and the conditions necessary for the use and profit-making during the existence of the contract (Article 623 of the Civil Act). If the leased object is damaged or obstructed by the leased object, and if it would be difficult for the lessee to use or profit-making under the contractual purpose unless it is repaired, the lessor bears the duty of repair.

The same applies to the case of damage to the leased object which is attributable to himself/herself, as well as damage that is not attributable to himself/herself (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da96984, Apr. 29, 2010). (B) The fact that the instant fire accident occurred inside the instant building is as seen earlier, and as a whole, evidence Nos. 5, 16, 26, 30, 35, and Eul evidence Nos. 6, 7 (No. 5, 16, 26, 30, 35, and 6, and 7 (No. 5, 16, 26, 30, 65, and 6, and 7). In full view of the following circumstances, the Defendant lessor is a lessor of the instant building and a manager of the entire building of the instant building, who violated his/her duty to maintain and manage the building of the instant building so that it does not interfere with the Plaintiff’s use of the building as a factory and its profits.