1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff operates a motor vehicle maintenance business in the Haan-gun, Gyeongnam-gun, and the Defendant operates iron bars in D adjacent thereto.

B. On March 30, 2013, around 09:50, a fire (hereinafter “instant fire”) occurred at the Plaintiff’s automobile maintenance enterprise and the Defendant’s aforementioned steel store, causing damage to the Plaintiff’s warehouse and parts, such as typiles, valves, etc., and fixtures, tools, etc., kept in the Plaintiff’s warehouse.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 3 evidence, Eul 1, 2 and 3 evidence, video and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the fire of this case, while the Defendant was engaged in the work of cutting the sprink at the workplace of the said steel store, was destroyed by a strong inflammable substance, such as a flammable in the vicinity, and thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate for damages under Article 758(1) of the Civil Act.

3. In order to establish the Defendant’s liability for the possessor or owner of a structure pursuant to Article 758(1) of the Civil Act, there is a defect in the installation or preservation of the structure that the Defendant occupied or owned, and thereby, the fire of this case should occur.

And the defect in the installation and preservation of a structure means that the structure does not have safety ordinarily required according to its use;

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da39548 delivered on January 14, 2000). However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone alone was that the fire of this case was caused by the Defendant’s destruction of inflammable substances, such as an electric cutting machine, which occurred while the Defendant was engaged in the work of cutting the pipe at the workplace of the said iron shop.

In addition, it is insufficient to recognize that the fire in this case has occurred due to defects in the installation and preservation of the structure at the above steel store operated by the defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion.