1. The Plaintiff’s appeal against the Defendants and the Defendant B’s appeal are all dismissed.

2. The plaintiff and the defendant.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for partial dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The following shall be added to the portion to be removed or added, 7 pages 7 of the first instance judgment:

As long as it is difficult to see that the fire in this case occurred due to the defect in the leased part itself, Defendant B and the Plaintiff used the second floor of the building in this case by setting up partitions as a sand site panel and dividing it into the space.

The fire of this case collapses along with the plaintiff's workplace and the business site of this case. Thus, it is insufficient to reverse the above judgment.

1) The following is added between 7 pages 8 and 9 of the first instance judgment.

The Plaintiff asserted that Defendant C is a co-owner of the instant workplace, and thus, is liable for damages due to defect in the installation and preservation of the structure. However, in a case where the possession of the structure was inflicted on another person due to defect in the installation or preservation of the structure, if the possession of the structure was in a relationship of agency, the direct possessor is liable for the primary liability, and the direct possessor is liable for the liability to the indirect possessor only when he did not neglect to exercise due care necessary for the prevention of damages (see Supreme Court Decision 81Da209, Jul. 28, 1981). The Defendant B, the direct possessor of the instant workplace, is liable for the damages due to defect in the installation and preservation of the structure, as examined in the following 5. As such, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is rejected. From September 9, 199 to November 11, 201.

As to this, Defendant B cannot believe the amount of damages calculated by an adjuster unilaterally requested by the Plaintiff, and the same is the same at the Spocheon City of Gyeonggi-do.