1. The plaintiff's appeal and all appeals filed by the security and engineering office of the defendant corporation are dismissed;

2.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Additional Evidence] The 4th 4th 6th th 4 to 6th 6th 100 of the first instance court's decision (which is the ground for recognition) add "A Evidence No. 24 (Rescue Statement)" to "

2. Determination as to whether the Defendants are liable for damages

A. The reasoning of the judgment of the court on the grounds of the claim is set forth in Section 2-A, except for the addition of the following:

Since it is the same as the statement in the claim, it is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[추가하는 증거] ▣ 제1심 판결문 제4쪽 제10, 11행의 “부합 증거”에 “을가 제46호증(정밀안전진단보고서)의 기재”를 추가한다.

B. The reasoning of the judgment of the court concerning the defendants' assertion is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows.

Since it is the same as the statement in the claim, it is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[추가하는 부분] ▣ 제1심 판결문 제8쪽 제21행 “사실들이다”의 다음에 아래를 추가한다.

(B) The Defendant’s security engineering stated the same phrases as the above cautions in the front head of the structural statement issued along with the second design documents. However, even if the Defendant’s assertion is true, it is difficult to view that the Defendant was not negligent in considering the following circumstances comprehensively.

3. The court's explanation on this part of the calculation of damages is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

4. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as there is no ground, and the judgment of the court of first instance is delivered with this conclusion.