1. The Defendant: (a) against the Plaintiff A, KRW 80,768,329; (b) KRW 46,345,553; and (c) against each of the said KRW 46,345,553; and (c) on December 16, 2012.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. On August 24, 2011, the Defendant was awarded a contract for the construction of four new buildings in Young-gun E, Gangwon-do, the Defendant completed the construction on January 19, 201, and completed the completion inspection on each of the above buildings, and on July 17, 2012, the registration of ownership preservation in the Plaintiff’s name was completed on each of the above buildings. One of the above buildings (hereinafter “instant building”).

The structure and use of the brick structure is 19.63 square meters in soup, soup, which can obtain soup effect by making frying the fry fry in the case of the Rose of Sharon. 2) The net F, the husband of the Plaintiff, from around 02:00 on December 15, 2012, among the persons who closed and temporarily set the windows and doors in the instant building from around 02:30 on the same day (hereinafter “instant accident”). The inside of the instant building was found to have been in a state of death of being addicted to the U.S.carbon addiction around 10:30 on the same day, and the inside of the instant building was even without delay.

3) As a result of the appraiser G’s appraisal of the building in this case, the building in this case was found to have been heatedly heated in the indoors of the floor chain by burning the fire fighter directly from the arche in the arche and transmitting the heat to the Gu, and the Gu again concluded that there was no room for the occurrence of harmful gas, such as sulfur oxide, from the top of the floor of the building in this case, particularly from the upper part of the arche to the arche, the degree of 0.5m of rupture to the 500m or 700m in length, and there was a lot of heat before and after 50m or 70m in the length. Through this, it was concluded that there was no possibility for the occurrence of harmful gas, such as sulfur oxide, etc., due to the high heat generated from the room room.

5) Plaintiff B and C are the father of the network F. [founded grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s subparagraphs 1 through 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12 (including the branch number; hereinafter the same shall apply).

each description, results of appraiser G’s appraisal, results of fact inquiry about appraiser G, the purport of the entire pleadings.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant constructed the building of this case and considered the structure and characteristics of the building of this case.