1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The court of first instance partially accepted the plaintiffs' claim for damages to their property and dismissed the claim for consolation money in its entirety, and the defendant company appealed only against this, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part of the claim for damages to property.

2. The reasons why this Court shall explain this part of the basic facts are as follows: (a) except where the Defendant D’s “Defendant D” and “Defendant D” as “Defendant Company” under the second sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance are applied in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since it is the same as the entry in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the Defendant Company is named as “Defendant Company.”

3. Summary of the parties' assertion

A. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the plaintiffs are "2. The parties' arguments - - the reasons why the court of first instance rendered the judgment."

A. The plaintiffs' assertion is identical to the plaintiffs' assertion, and thus, it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. Defendant 1) The instant fireproof warehouse is a building newly constructed pursuant to the relevant laws and regulations at the time of its new construction. The Defendant Company had a fire extinguisher in the instant fireproof warehouse, occupied, and managed it, and there is no violation of the fire-fighting-related Acts and subordinate statutes. As such, there is no defect in installation or preservation in the instant fireproof warehouse. 2) The instant fire accident was not discovered as the cause of the fire accident.

Therefore, even if the plaintiffs suffered damages due to the fire accident of this case, it cannot be viewed as damages due to the defect in installation or preservation of structures under Article 758(1) of the Civil Act.

3) Considering the circumstances described in the foregoing Paragraph 1, the Defendant Company did not neglect due care necessary to prevent damage as the possessor of the instant fireproof warehouse.

4 Even if the defendant company is liable to compensate for the fire accident of this case to the family company, the liability of the defendant company shall be reduced to the appropriate extent pursuant to Article 3 of the Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by the Fire.

4. Determination A.