1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants exceeding the money ordered to be paid under the following subparagraphs shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning for this case by the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary or additional parts] Following the fourth decision of the first instance, the following shall be added:

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance, "No. 14 and 15 of the judgment of the court of first instance, i.e., the defendants shall bear all the damages caused by the fire accident of this case, even though they are not joint occupants of the air conditioners of this case, is inappropriate in light of the ideology of the damage compensation system, and therefore, the ratio of the defendants' liability for damages is limited."

“However, even if D does not jointly possess the air conditioner of this case, the air conditioner of this case was installed for the regulation of temperature in the computer room. D is expected to have increased the operating hours of the air conditioner of this case compared to the use of the computer equipment in the computer room of this case by Defendant B, and D also used the air conditioner of this case by using the computer unit of this case. In addition, the Defendants’ liability is limited to 80% in consideration of all the circumstances indicated in the argument of this case, including the occurrence of the fire of this case and the principle of fair sharing of damages. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that even if D paid management expenses to Defendant B, it is difficult to view that the management contract was established separately, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s above assertion, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is rejected.