1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning for this part of this Court’s reasoning is as follows, except for the following parts, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in Chapters 2, 15, and 4, and 3, the reasoning is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The third-party 15 to 17 of the judgment of the court of first instance.

항을 “가. 원고는 의정부시 D 소재 지상 2층 건물(경량철골조 샌드위치판넬즙. 이하 ‘이 사건 건물’이라 한다)에 대하여 위 건물의 관리자인 E를 피보험자로 하여 화재보험계약(이하 ‘이 사건 보험계약’이라 한다)을 체결한 보험사업자이다.”로 고친다.

The third part of the judgment of the first instance is as follows: (a) the first part of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows; (b) the nine part is as follows; (c) the nine part is as follows; and (d) the 19 part is as E.

Part 3, 9 through 11, "B........ the National Scientific Investigation Research Institute that has appraised the aforesaid multi-Contact" provided an opinion that ".......... there is no electrical privilege that is directly related to the source of chemical origin," and the part "........., the National Scientific Investigation Research Institute that has appraised the above multi-Contact," provided an opinion that "........, there is no electrical privilege that is directly related to the source of chemical origin, as set forth in No. 1, which is presumed to be multi-modal, the possibility of the outbreak by the residual damage," and that "..........., the National Scientific Investigation Research Institute that has appraised the above multi-modal contact,"

Part 4 "(Reasons for Recognition)" shall be added to Section 2 "(2)."

2. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the fire occurred inside the F Rest room of the first floor of the instant building, which was occupied by Defendant B leased and possessed by Defendant B, and the cause of the fire is electrical factors in the multi-modal container or the compliance frame, and thus, there is a defect in the installation and preservation of the structure. Even if the cause of the fire is unclear, it is unclear.

Even if Defendant B does not have a fire extinguisher on the instant building, it is necessary to install and preserve structures, such as neglecting the management of the electrical contact.