1. The plaintiffs' appeal and the supplementary selective claims in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. Basic facts

A. The parties’ relationship 1) The Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) engaging in the wholesale and retail sales business, etc. of P.V.C. is called the Defendant Company for convenience

) The Republic of Korea: (a) set up a steel-frame structure with a floor on the 290.9 square meters in Ulsan-gu, Nam-gu, Seoul-gu, J; (b) and (c) the plastic pipe, such as double walls, PE pipes, THP oil missions, PE cable pipes, and PE water pipes (hereinafter “instant plastic pipe”).

2) The open storage site of this case (hereinafter referred to as “the open storage site of this case”) shall be stored by piling up the goods.

(2) Plaintiff A and Plaintiff C are the husband and wife, and Plaintiff E is the lessee of L 203, which is the building described in the attached Table 1 of the first instance trial, and Plaintiff E is the lessee of L 303.

Plaintiff

G is the owner of the land and building listed in paragraph 3 of the attached Table 3 of the first instance court in the vicinity of the instant outdoor site.

B. On December 23, 2014, at around 15:20, a fire (hereinafter “instant fire”) occurred in the part of the inner corner of the left corner of the instant camping site, where the cause of the fire occurred, and the 10th cost of the vehicle parked in a building such as N (O), L, P, M, Q, or R room in the vicinity of the fire (hereinafter “instant fire”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, 15, 17 evidence, Eul 1, 2 and 3 evidence (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The main point of the Plaintiffs’ assertion 1 is that housing units, such as studio, are adjacent to the site near the site of the instant claim for damages based on the Plaintiff’s claim 1 structure liability. As such, the Defendant Company had a duty of care to take appropriate measures to prevent fire spread, such as installing steel structures, which are structures, and storing plastic pipes, etc., which are easily burned, with outer walls, etc. installed in the site of the site, and installing automatic fire extinguishing devices such as sprinklers, etc.

Nevertheless, the plaintiffs, who are the owners or occupants of buildings around the open site due to the spread of the fire in violation of the above duty of care, suffered property damage by the defendant company.