1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a person who operates a secondhand shop with the trade name of "D" at the above address, and the defendant C is a person engaged in a synthetic resin recycling business with the trade name of "E" at the above address, and the defendant B is an employee of the defendant C (factory site).

나. 피고 B는 2016. 2. 18. 09:30경부터 D 사무실 컨테이너 근처에서 라이터로 플라스틱 제품 모서리에 불을 붙인 후 ‘후’하고 부는 방법으로 불을 껐을 때 발생하는 연기의 색깔 및 냄새 등을 통해 재활용이 가능한 플라스틱 제품을 선별하여 상차작업을 마친 후 10:07경 D을 떠났는데, 그로부터 약 30분 후 D 사업장 내에서 화재(이하 ‘이 사건 화재’라고 한다)가 발생하였다.

C. Defendant B was indicted for committing a crime of causing the instant fire by leaving the place of work without completely extinguishing the fire attached to some plastic products at the time of the aforementioned selection work, and was sentenced to a judgment of conviction (a fine of KRW 7,00,000) at the first instance of August 18, 2017 (this court 2017 Highest 1029), but was sentenced to a judgment of innocence at the appellate court (this court 2017No2452) on September 13, 2018.

【Ground of recognition】 Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 18, and 1; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the fire of this case is based on the facts.

Defendant B and its employer were liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 100,00,000 for damages caused by the loss of machinery, etc. owned by the Plaintiff due to the instant fire.

B. In light of the statement, etc. of Gap evidence No. 12-1 through 4, and Gap evidence No. 13-18, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the fire of this case occurred due to the negligence of defendant B, and there is no other evidence. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit without further review.

3. Conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is with merit.