1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revocation part is revoked.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following “the part which is dismissed or corrected in 2.2.” Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. 2. The part which is dismissed or corrected in 2.2. is identical to

6. up to 30.0 " until the same year"

6. There is no difference between 30 and 30. The third part of the judgment of the court of first instance and the third part of the judgment of the court of first instance were “the notification of installation performance.”

Then, on March 30, 2018, Defendant Seo-gu issued a corrective order to install the instant fire safety facilities against the Plaintiff.

In addition, “A evidence No. 13” is added to “the grounds for recognition” of heading 18 and 19.

Part 3-B of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance.

The paragraphs are as follows:

B. We examine the judgment on the merits. The Plaintiff was transferred the entire operating rights of the instant building and the instant childcare center from Defendant B on December 2, 2012, and operated childcare centers in the instant building from around December 2012, and the Defendant Seo-gu from June 1, 2015.

6. On July 9, 2015, on the ground that the fire safety facilities of this case were not installed in the child care center of this case according to the results of the investigation into the actual condition of the emergency disaster prevention facilities conducted until 30, the fact that the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff of the installation performance of the above facilities is identical to the above basic facts. On the other hand, according to the fact-finding results on the Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1, and the fact-finding on the first instance court's head of the Korea Infant Care Agency, Defendant B newly constructed the building of this case on June 2004, the first floor is the educational research and welfare facilities (child care facilities) and parking facilities, the second floor is the second floor, the second floor is the second class neighborhood living facilities, the third floor is the multi-family house, and the approval for the use of the above facilities was obtained on November 9, 2005, the building above 2, 3, 4 and the change of the purpose of use of the child care facilities (child care facilities).