1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, located in the C market, was operating the “E” to reflect the trade name in Boh-si D and 1 (hereinafter “instant store”), and the Defendant operated the clothes of “F” at a place adjacent to the instant store.

B. G was living on the street near the Defendant’s shop, but the Defendant received 500,000 won from G for one year under the name of electricity rent, etc. and made it possible for G to use electricity from the Defendant’s clothes.

C. On October 01, 2014, around 01:00, fire occurred near the street store of G operation, and the store of this case was relocated to the store of this case.

(hereinafter “instant fire”). D.

H, I, J, K, and L (hereinafter “H, etc.”) filed a lawsuit against G seeking compensation for damages incurred by the instant fire at this court’s 2015da474, which was the owner of the instant store. On September 1, 2015, this court rendered a judgment dismissing the claim of H, etc. on the ground that it is difficult to recognize that the instant fire occurred due to the negligence of G, and the said judgment was dismissed on May 31, 2016 (Seoul District Court Decision 2015Na8986). The said judgment was rendered final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion G used water when operating on a street store, thereby raising the risk of water leakage, and in order to supply a gas station to active language, it was necessary to supply electricity within 24 hours a day and thus high voltage current was required.

Therefore, in supplying electricity, the defendant shall make efforts to eliminate risks caused by the use of electricity, such as entrusting electrical construction to an electrical business operator with specialized technology.