1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the 5th 2nd 2nd 5th 2th 2th 5th 5th 5th 5th 6th 4th 6th 4th 11th 6th 11st 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 11st 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 11st 6th 6th 6th 6th 11st 6th 6th 6th

2. The phrase "the height part" is the same as mentioned above as the fire in this case was emitted in the vicinity of the two pumps accumulated in one of the factory head of the defendant.

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged earlier, there was a defect in the installation and preservation relating to the management of the air pumps at the time of the fire of this case, considering the aforementioned facts, Gap evidence Nos. 6 and Eul evidence Nos. 3 (including additional numbers).

It is difficult to readily conclude that the instant fire occurred or spreads therefrom, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① The point where the instant fire first occurred is open to the outside of the factory building, not only inside the factory building, but also outside the factory building. The place where not only the Defendant but also the neighboring factory owners temporarily loaded raw materials or products as necessary.

② As a result of the instant fire, the cause of the instant fire was not revealed in detail other than that of electrical, mechanical, and chemical factors.

③ The time when the instant fire occurred was out of the A.M. to be opened from the A.M. to the C., but the C.C. had the nature of water as soon as possible along with the strong inflammable nature. Therefore, it seems that it was difficult to easily expect the fire to occur on the B.C. on the day of the instant fire.

(4) The defendant factory shall be general.