1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation as to this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following determination as to the evidence submitted by the plaintiff in the court of first instance, and thus, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. In addition, the proof of facts is not a natural scientific proof that is not a suspicion of suspicion in the civil litigation, but a comprehensive examination of all evidence in light of the empirical rule, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, and it is necessary to establish a high probability that there was a fact. The determination requires that if ordinary, it would not be doubtful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Da6755, Oct. 28, 2010; 89Da7730, Jun. 26, 199; 99Da65097, Feb. 25, 200). The plaintiff is still liable for damages against the defendant due to a tort against the defendant in this case where the suspicion of occupational failure against the defendant's side becomes final and conclusive by the verdict of innocence.

However, the Plaintiff’s statement in Gap evidence No. 19 submitted at the trial included the Defendant’s initial statement about the instant fire accident, which was immediately after the accident, that the fire occurred in the contact work was generated in the laundry. However, the Defendant’s initial statement or statement does not explain the scientific cause of the instant fire accident. Moreover, even if the Defendant’s statement was based on the above statement, it does not include the following circumstances in which the laundry occurred in the vicinity of the laundry, namely, the process of spreading the fire inside the building through the laundry.