1. From January 8, 2015 to December 2016, 2016, the Defendants jointly committed against the Plaintiff KRW 26,883,244 and the Defendants jointly committed against the Plaintiff.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is the same as the statement on the corresponding column of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to Article 664 of the Civil Act, a contract for work becomes effective when one of the parties agrees to complete a certain work, and the other party agrees to pay remuneration for the result of the work. According to the main sentence of Article 665(1) of the Civil Act, remuneration shall be paid at the same time as the delivery of the completed object.

Therefore, if a contractor’s obligation to return an object completed becomes impossible, he/she shall be responsible to prove that the failure is not due to the contractor’s cause attributable to the contractor, and even if the cause of the fire is unknown if the object of the contract is destroyed by fire, the contractor must prove that the contractor fulfilled his/her duty of due care to preserve the object. This legal principle shall apply to cases where the contractor seeks damages due to fire that the object was destroyed by fire.

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Defendants, the contractor of the instant construction, did not prove that the instant fire occurred even though they fulfilled their duty of due care to preserve the instant housing which is the object of the contract while performing the instant construction work after being awarded a contract with C, and thus, they are liable to compensate for KRW 67,208,112, which is the owner of the instant housing and C, the contractor of the instant construction, who is the contractor of the instant construction, for damages incurred by the instant fire.