1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 9,188,00 against the Plaintiff and its related amount from July 5, 2017 to July 26, 2018.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 330 square meters of 1st floor of Class II neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned building”) of the 1st floor of the 2nd apartment living facilities of the 1st floor in Gyeyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-si. The Defendant is the lessee of the 330 square meters of 1st floor of Class II neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “Defendant-leased”) adjacent to the Plaintiff’s building.

B. On February 1, 2016, around 13:22, 2016, the employees of D companies located behind the Defendant’s leased building showed a smoke of inspection from the window width during the process of performing the following work after the point meals, and viewed it out of the building, and thus, the Defendant’s attempt to extinguish the inspection inside the Defendant’s leased building to the fire extinguishingr as it appears to have a smoke and flames, but the Defendant’s leased building was reported to 119 as it did not take any length. The Defendant’s leased building was destroyed by the said fire, and the Plaintiff’s leased building was also replaced by fire in the process.

C. The fire inspection results of fire officers are as follows:

The extent of fire is severe, the left portion of the sand site panel, warehouse, and warehouse of the Defendant-leased Building on the ground of the expansion of burning point and burning route, and the area of the Plaintiff-owned building located on the right side and the left side, and the area of the work of the latter side was spreaded to the warehouse of the Plaintiff-owned building, which is located on the right side and the left side, and the area of the work of the latter side is identified, and the inspection from the left part of the leased office of the Defendant-leased Building was conducted on the right side of the warehouse, and the fact that the fact that the combustion was conducted on the right side of the warehouse is presumed to have been launched on the left side of the leased building of the Defendant-leased Building, and there was no access to and out of the warehouse before the fire discovered, and there was a statement of the members that the entrance of the warehouse at the time of arrival (E) was in a dry state, according to related persons, the employees did not stay in the warehouse and the fire occurred every week

1.(gold) At 26:30, it shall be deemed that the last visit to the warehouse was made.