1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. The reasons why the court cited the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case are stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the defendant's assertion of mitigation of liability to the court of first instance as to the defendant's assertion of mitigation of liability to the court of first instance as stated in the following

(C) Article 3 of the Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by Negligence of the part added at the trial (see Article 3 of the Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by Negligence of the first instance court). 2. The court may reduce the amount of damages upon the claim of the person liable for damage in the event that the fire is not caused by gross negligence. The gross negligence here refers to a situation in which the result of the harm of illegality can be easily predicted, even if the person liable for damage did not pay considerable attention to the extent required by the ordinary person.

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Da21050 delivered on October 27, 1992, etc.). In full view of the health team, the Defendant’s liability ratio is reasonable to be limited to 30% of the amount of damages, taking into account all the circumstances, such as the cause and scale of the instant fire accident, the subject and degree of damage, the cause of expansion of combustion and damage, the degree of negligence on the part of the Defendant, and the amount of damages.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 98,400 won (=328,000 won x 30%) and to pay damages for delay calculated at each rate of 15% per annum under the Civil Act from September 3, 2013, which is the day following the date of the final payment of insurance proceeds, to March 30, 2017, which is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation.

3. Conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed due to the lack of reasonable grounds.