1. The Defendant’s KRW 6,142,50 for the Plaintiff and its related KRW 5% per annum from February 28, 2017 to November 8, 2018.

Basic Facts

A. The Plaintiff owned a restaurant, room, etc. on the ground of Macheon-si, and operated a mutually “D restaurant”, and the Defendant owned a restaurant and room, etc. on the ground of Macheon-si, Macheon-si, located adjacent to the above restaurant, and was engaged in the restaurant and private restaurant business with the trade name “F cafeteria.”

B. On February 28, 2017, at around 18:00, a fire that started to be emitted from the Electric Power Center of the Fcafeteria which was owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant-owned building”) was concluded that “the fire accident in this case is presumed to have occurred due to a sudden phenomenon that occurred from the power lines of the building owned by the Defendant, in view of the fact that many marks of the joint marks were identified from the electric wires located in the electric wires located in the electric wires located in the building owned by the Defendant.”

C. The instant fire accident caused the damage caused by the fire that was destroyed by the fire to the guest rooms and 2 sperm (hereinafter “the instant guest rooms and sperm”) located behind the Plaintiff’s building located behind the Defendant’s building.

[Grounds for recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including a branch number), and the plaintiff asserted the purport of the whole pleadings as to the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff, as the fire of this case, destroyed the guest room and 2 sperm as the fire of this case, and paid KRW 21,240,000 to newly construct them again.

At the time of the instant fire, the Defendant, the owner of the F cafeteria building at the time of the instant fire, is liable for the said damages by the Plaintiff.

Since a fire occurred in a building owned by the defendant and damaged the plaintiff, the defendant tried to newly set the building that was destroyed at the defendant's expense, and as a result, it was sufficiently new construction of the building that was destroyed at the time to 3 million won to 4 million won.

However, unlike the transfer, the defendant could not pay compensation to the wind that the plaintiff demanded the construction of excessively high-priced buildings.