1. All appeals by the plaintiffs and the primary defendants are dismissed.

2. Of the appeal costs, the Plaintiffs’ appeal is due.

1. Grounds for a judgment of this court which accepted the judgment of the court of first instance (1) No. 11-5 to 11-3

(b) 2-A of the following part of paragraph 5:

(2) 12 pages 1 to 4 of the judgment of the first instance shall be added as stated in paragraph 4.

Section 2-B of the following section:

(3) With respect to the contents claimed by the parties emphasizing in the trial, the following 2-C.

Except for an additional determination as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, it is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with Article 420

2. Parts used or added;

A. 1-5-11-3-3 of the first instance judgment

B. The part added to the part of paragraph 5) is "On the other hand, the Plaintiff Company A is selectively liable to Defendant C for tort under Article 750 of the Civil Act, or is the possessor of the building without permission of this case under Article 758 of the Civil Act, and is also liable to compensate for the damage of the structure.

However, the burden of proving the negligence of the infringer, which is the requirement for a claim for damages due to a tort under Article 750 of the Civil Act, is the victim.

In addition, even in the case of “defect in the construction or maintenance of a structure” under Article 758(1) of the Civil Act, it refers to a state in which the structure itself is in a state in which it is in a state of lacking ordinary safety, and is liable to prove the existence of such

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da218208, Aug. 18, 2017; see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da218208, etc.). In this case, where the cause of the occurrence of a fire was not revealed in light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff A alone, which alone led to the occurrence of the instant fire by the negligence of Defendant C.

or the instant building is not deemed to have been in a state of failure to meet the safety requirements ordinarily for the building without permission, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff A's status.