1. The Defendant’s KRW 101,643,279 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from July 15, 2016 to January 23, 2019.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff, as the owner of the building on the ground C-Slock C (hereinafter “Plaintiff factory”), was engaged in a manufacturing business of building materials, such as the windows in the Plaintiff factory, and the Defendant, as the owner of the building on the same ground D-Slock (hereinafter “Defendant factory”), was engaged in a manufacturing business, such as the horses at the Defendant factory.

B. On July 14, 2016, at the inside of the Defendant factory, a cause unclaimed fire occurred and the inside of the Defendant factory, materials, etc. were removed. Of the Plaintiff factory, the Plaintiff factory, which was located on the left side of the Defendant factory, was destroyed by fire.

(hereinafter “instant fire”). C.

At the time of the instant fire, the outer wall of the Defendant’s factory was composed of a sanddial panel, and the Defendant’s factory did not have a fire extinguishing system such as sping schooller.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 5 (if there are serial numbers, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the defendant factory is responsible for compensating the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the fire of this case, since the fire that occurred within the defendant factory was moved to the plaintiff factory building that was located at the left side of the defendant factory and the machinery, inventory, etc. were destroyed by the fire of this case, although the outer wall was composed of a sandd position panel that is vulnerable to fire, and the fire was manufactured well, and the fire extinguishing devices, etc. were not properly installed to prevent the spread of fire. Thus, the defendant is liable for compensating for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the fire of this case. (2) The defendant is seeking to reduce the liability for compensating for damages under Article 3 of the Act on the Actual Liability for Fire of this case. (3) The fact that the defendant was recognized or did not have any dispute prior to it was added to the whole purport of the entries and arguments in subparagraphs 3 and 4, i.e., the cause of the fire of this case,