The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

A. Defendant C’s KRW 600,620,573 and KRW 480,496,458 among the Plaintiff.

1. The grounds for appeal by the Plaintiff and Defendant C, which cited the judgment of the first instance, are not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance trial. In light of the evidence submitted in the first instance trial, recognition and determination of the facts of the first instance trial are recognized as legitimate.

Therefore, this court's reasoning is the same as the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance except for the dismissal as follows. Therefore, this court's reasoning is cited in accordance with the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts in height:

A. Paragraph (1)(b)(i)(6)(6)(3) of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance court in the “determination on the claim against Defendant C” is as follows.

(1) First, as to whether the instant fire occurred due to the installation and preservation defects of the small part of the instant fire, the following circumstances can be acknowledged as having neglected the overall purport of the pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, and 7, namely, the Incheon Metropolitan City Fire headquarters as a result of the investigation into the cause of the instant fire, namely, the conclusion that “the possibility of the outbreak due to the chemical elements of the electricity, but all of the possibility of the outbreak due to the chemical elements of the instant fire exists, and the specific characteristics are not identified,” and that “the fire caused by the fire”, “the heat and the first generation factors of the fire, and the first generation of the fire: the prosecutor in charge of investigating the suspicion of the occupational fire by Defendant C’s “the fire caused by the heat.”

However, there is no direct evidence.

“For the reason that it issued a disposition against Defendant C without suspicion (Evidence), ③ part of the small part of the small part of the instant fire on the date of the instant fire, Defendant C performed the work of painting and construction work using a seal and a hot blast, which combines a new or secret set, and M performed the work of car sales upon the request of Defendant C. However, the fire department of Incheon Jung-gu could not exclude Defendant C’s painting work or M’s printing work as a factor of generating car sales, but it is impossible to discuss whether there is a close relation with the outbreak.

“Determination”.