1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff was in custody of sound, lighting, video equipment, etc. for outdoor stage use in the off-site warehouse B (hereinafter “the instant warehouse”) in annju-si. The Plaintiff supplied electricity to the instant warehouse.

B. On July 3, 2016, around 7:18:00 a.m., a fire occurred in the instant warehouse, and the instant warehouse was dissolved, and the equipment, etc. inside the storage was destroyed by fire, etc. owned by the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant fire”). [Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 5 (including additional evidence) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant is obligated to install and manage the power supply facilities in accordance with the contract on the supply of electricity with the Plaintiff. The instant fire is caused by a long-standing horse and strong wind, a shot cable with a clothes cut, and the instant wire is caused by the shot lines and shot lines generated from the inflow of rainwater, etc., and the said wire is the power supply facilities

Therefore, the Defendant shall compensate the Plaintiff for the damages of KRW 3,242,560,00 due to the instant fire that occurred due to the defect in the installation and management of the above power supply facilities, and seek for the payment of KRW 1,000,000 as part of the claim, and damages for delay.

3. Determination on the liability of fire occurrence

A. In a civil suit, the proof of facts in the relevant legal doctrine is not a natural scientific proof that is not a suspicion, but a comprehensive examination of all evidence in light of the empirical rule, barring any special circumstance, and barring any special circumstance, it is necessary to establish a high probability that there was a fact, and the judgment should be to the extent that, if ordinary, it would not be doubtful.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Da6755 Decided October 28, 2010). B.

Judgment

According to the records of Gap evidence No. 4, the so-called "fire investigation and analysis division" (fire investigation and analysis division) is the fire of this case.