1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff’s “320,208,120 won” against the Defendant and its related thereto from February 3, 2015 to August 17, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 7, 2013, Plaintiff B owned two vinyls D, and one of them was leased to Plaintiff A on the same 384 square meters (hereinafter “the first vinyl house”) and used the remainder of 327 square meters (hereinafter “the second vinyl house”) for residential purposes.

Plaintiff

A used the first plastic greenhouse as a warehouse that keeps machinery.

The Defendant operated a factory in the name of “G” at a greenhouse of F in the city, which is adjacent to the greenhouse greenhouse 1 and 2.

B. On February 3, 2015, the Defendant: (a) put a tree stove into the wood boiler in the stoves of “G” greenhouse; and (b) laid the boiler by attaching a fire to the boiler.

On the other hand, at around 12:00, the fire of this case occurred because the heat heat in the heating boiler was emitted from inflammable substances in the vicinity of the strings, while opening the air control apparatus of the stove boiler.

As the instant fire, the “G” greenhouse was burned, and fire was spread, and fire was destroyed by the 1, 2 plastic houses, internal furnitures, machinery, etc. of the neighboring site.

C. On July 22, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 700,000 on the ground of the crime of realizing the greenhouse fire that caused the instant fire and destroyed the greenhouse house Nos. 1 and 2 by violating the duty of care to manage the air control apparatus in order to prevent any excessive heat while observing the forest boiler well.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap's statements or images, and the purport of the whole pleadings, as set forth in Gap's Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6 through 8, Gap's Evidence No. 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 (including paper numbers)

2. Since the fire of this case occurred by the defendant's negligence, the defendant is liable to compensate the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the fire of this case.

3. Scope of damages.

A. In full view of the Plaintiff’s damage (1) appraisal result of appraiser H, and the fact inquiry result of the first instance court’s first instance court’s fact inquiry, the entire purport of the pleadings is examined.