1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. From June 197, the Plaintiff is operating the original production company (wing factory) with D’s “D” on the first floor of the land building in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On June 10, 2010, the Plaintiff purchased one air-conditioner at “E” store operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant air-conditioner”), and the Defendant installed the instant air-conditioner at the Plaintiff’s request.

However, the electric wires connecting the main body and the outdoor apparatus of this case are 8 meters. Under the building conditions of this case, the main body and the outer apparatus are cut off more than 8 meters, and it is necessary to extend the air wires. Accordingly, the Defendant completed the installation of the instant air condition by linking the electric wires of this case to the main body and the outer body by the method of attaching other wires.

C. On July 14, 2015, at around 05:39, a fire occurred in the instant building (hereinafter “instant fire”), and at the electric cable connecting the main body and the outer body among the air conditioners of the instant case, a trace was discovered.

[Evidence] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion did not meet the required safety requirements for the instant air-conditioning cable installed by the Defendant, and the instant fire occurred due to the Defendant’s mistake (construction defect).

Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff damages for nonperformance or tort.

(Selective Claim Grounds). (b)

Judgment

According to the results of the fact-finding by the court, the fact that the light-based fire station, as a result of the fact-finding on the light-based fire station, determined that the light-based fire station caused the fire of this case by the failure to verify by electrical factors from the air of this case.

However, circumstances acknowledged by Gap evidence No. 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings are as follows.