1. The defendants' appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

2. Costs by an appeal and incidental appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same reasoning as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance are cited or added as follows, and thus, it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

[Supplementary or added parts] The 8th 13th 13th m "Seoul Metropolitan City" shall be changed to "Seoul Central Franc Fire Station."

9 A. 29,30 Evidence shall be added to the 3rd evidence of the 9th page and the following shall be added to the front part of the evidence:

The Defendant asserts that the amount equivalent to the customs duties scheduled to be refunded is premised on the assumption that the pertinent product is exported at all, and that it does not constitute damage caused by the instant fire as a special damage. However, as long as the Plaintiff had already paid the customs duties corresponding thereto while importing the said raw materials and products, the amount equivalent to the raw materials and products destroyed by the instant fire and the amount equivalent to the customs duties corresponding thereto constitutes ordinary damage caused by the instant fire. The Defendants’ assertion is without merit, following the 12th 10th 12th 10th

The Plaintiff asserts that the total amount of business losses incurred after August 2015 to February 2016 should be recognized, since the total amount of business losses incurred by the Plaintiff reaches KRW 197,414,186, whichever is greater than the Plaintiff’s assertion when calculating the portion omitted by the aforementioned method. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the total amount of business losses incurred after August 2015, when one year has elapsed from the time of the occurrence of the instant fire, is difficult to be deemed to constitute a fire of this case or a trade damage, and thus, the amount exceeding the above recognized amount is not acceptable. The Plaintiff’s argument is dismissed as follows, from April 12 to 134.

“The Plaintiff shall have sustained KRW 15,750,00 due to the instant fire, and KRW 174,00,000,000 (= KRW 200,000,000 per package-on loss necessary for the production of bank, bank, wall, and salv. owned by the Plaintiff) (i.e., KRW 200,000 per package-on x 870.