1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a person who operates a motor vehicle maintenance shop in Ansan-si, a member B (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle maintenance shop”).

On March 8, 2012, around 11:48, the defendant's employee was not in the process of heat treatment in the painting processing room located in the above automobile maintenance shop.

B. The fire destroyed the inside of the instant automobile maintenance shop, such as books, etc., which were engaged in heat treatment work, and subsequently, destroyed the said building and machinery, office fixtures, etc. attached to the said building and the said building, which were located on the part of the said automobile maintenance shop, to the Plaintiff-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Building located on the side of the said automobile maintenance

(hereinafter “instant fire”). C.

The Plaintiff suffered property damage of KRW 623,138,802 due to the instant fire, and was paid insurance money of KRW 410,973,981 from the fire insurance company to which the Plaintiff was a party.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendant’s automobile maintenance shop where the instant fire occurred due to defects in the installation and preservation of structures is installed with a large number of heat treatment devices inside the shop for heat treatment work, and there are many inflammable substances such as paints and packers, and thus, the risk of fire occurrence is high.

Nevertheless, the Defendant established a sandd position panel structure that is vulnerable to fire in the instant car maintenance office, and did not install a string to extinguish the fire in the automobile maintenance office as soon as the fire occurred.

In addition, the Defendant did not install a ventilation, etc. to prevent chemical substances, such as dust dust, in the seals of the instant automobile maintenance shop, and did not install a fire protection wall to prevent the removal of fire from an adjacent building.

This is due to such defects in the installation and maintenance of the automobile maintenance office of this case.