1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant is the owner of a single-story shed, 195.84 square meters (hereinafter “the instant one livestock shed”) and a single-story stable 241.8 square meters (hereinafter “the instant two livestock shed”) constructed in succession on the land C and D in lusium in lusium C and D (hereinafter “the instant one livestock shed”).

B. On July 23, 2013, the Plaintiff leased the instant one stable from the Defendant and used it as a warehouse that stores golf products.

C. On March 1, 2016, E (mutualF) leased the instant cattle shed from the Defendant and used it as a factory or warehouse producing and storing wooden households.

On June 22, 2016, at around 09:59, a fire that was loaded with a wooden household, etc. was destroyed by an unidentified cause inside the 2 livestock shed of this case, and the fire was destroyed by a golf product, etc. in the 1 livestock shed of this case.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant fire”). [Grounds for recognition: Facts without dispute; entries in Gap evidence 1-5 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. (1) The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is liable as the owner of the 2 livestock shed in this case. The plaintiff is the owner of the 2 livestock shed in this case, who is the owner of the 2 livestock shed in this case, and is responsible for compensating the plaintiff for the damages caused

The liability for compensating other persons for damages due to the defect in the construction or the maintenance of a structure under Article 758 of the Luxembourg, in the first place, shall be the possessor of the structure, who actually occupies and manages the structure, directly and specifically, and the possessor of the structure shall not exercise due care necessary for the prevention of damages, and the possessor of the structure shall be held liable for compensating for damages in the second place when immunity is granted by proving that he/she did not exercise due care necessary for the prevention of damages (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da23551, Jan. 12, 1993).