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

2. The costs of the lawsuit after the filing of the appeal shall be individually.

1. The court's explanation concerning this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the supplement of the judgment as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, this case is quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Supplement of judgment

A. The Defendant’s liability for damages continues in this court, but it is unclear whether the instant fire occurred due to the defect in electric installations of the instant factory, and the Defendant complied with the fire-related provisions of the Building Act at the time of the new construction of the instant factory, and confirmed whether the instant factory electric installations and fire-fighting systems had been inspected on a regular basis prior to the occurrence of the instant fire, and therefore, the Defendant fulfilled its duty to take protective measures to prevent the fire and the spread of the instant factory.

However, contrary to the Defendant’s assertion that “the melting net of the floor side of the front side of the instant fire is nothing more than the difference in the lumination work,” with regard to the fact that the instant fire is not an electrical cause, the images of the fire site investigation report (No. 2) appear in the melting melting color, not the color of alinium alinium alinium alinium alins, but the electric material of electric wires, rather than the color of alinium alinium alins, the above melting net was supported by the circumstance that the instant fire is an electrical cause, and there was no special factor as to the possibility of fire prevention or gas leakage, etc.

In addition, the relevant statutes can only serve as a standard for considering the existence of defects in the installation and preservation of structures, and do not absolutely exist (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Da10139, Jun. 28, 2007; 87Da1282, Oct. 28, 1987). Thus, the Defendant newly constructed the instant factory in compliance with the fire-prevention provisions of the Building Act, or carried out a regular inspection of electricity, fire-fighting equipment, etc., by itself.