1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the following determination as to the Plaintiff’s assertion emphasized or added by this court, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant’s housing itself is a structure, and Defendant B’s failure to prepare fire-fighting devices inside the Defendant’s housing, caused damage to the instant fire and caused damage to the Plaintiff’s housing. As such, Defendant B is liable to compensate for damages under Article 758 of the Civil Act. 2) In preparatoryly, even if Defendant B did not have the responsibility to compensate for the structure, Defendant B did not install a fire extinguisher, etc., and caused the spread of a fire by neglecting the plastic garbage bags in the vicinity of the Defendant’s river. Since Defendant B’s negligence as an assistant in possession of the Defendant B ought to be considered as Defendant B’s negligence, the Defendant B is liable to compensate for damages under Article 750 of the Civil Act.

B. Determination as to the primary assertion refers to the defect in the installation or preservation of a structure as referred to in Article 758(1) of the Civil Act refers to that a structure is in a state of failing to meet normal safety requirements according to its use. In determining whether such safety is satisfied, the determination shall be based on whether the installer or custodian of the structure has fulfilled his/her duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the risk of the structure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da61615, Feb. 11, 2010). 2) In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the instant case is examined.

In other words, there is no evidence to deem that there is an administrative law that the Defendant’s house is a worn-out building and has separate fire extinguisherss, etc., as follows based on the foregoing evidence.