1. The Plaintiff’s appeal against Defendant C, D, and E and Defendant B are all dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's appeal is made.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: “It is difficult to reverse the judgment of the court of first instance, which is the building of this case, even if the witness Q of the court of first instance submitted to the court of first instance, even if the witness testimony of the court of first instance, the point of extinguishment of the fire of this case is difficult to reverse the judgment of the court of first instance, which is the building of this case.” The plaintiff’s assertion as to Defendant D and E added in the court of first instance is the same as the statement of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the additional determination in paragraph (2).

The total floor of the 3rd 8rd gate of theG building shall be "the total floor of the 2nd gate of theG building (hereinafter referred to as "the instant commercial building")."

The "Article 758 (1) of the Civil Act" of the 5th parallel, 7th parallel, 7th parallel, 7th parallel and 9th parallel are "the main sentence of Article 758 (1) of the Civil Act".

The "Article 758 (2) of the Civil Act" of the 7th 6th 6th , 7th , and 10th 10 is "the proviso of Article 758 (1) of the Civil Act".

7. The inquiry results against the head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office shall be added to the inquiry results of the fact-finding reply of the Dongdaemun-gu fire station.

The Act on the Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on Fire Prevention and Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems") in 7 Myeon 14.

The following shall be added to the 6th line at the bottom of the 7th page “not required to install”:

The issue of whether the building in this case is a specific fire-fighting object is an important factor in determining illegality in private law for Defendant C’s failure to install fire-fighting systems in the above building. Furthermore, barring special circumstances, such as that there are several times of fire in the above building before the occurrence of the fire in this case, there is no obvious ground to view that Defendant C has a duty of care to install fire-fighting systems in the building in this case, not a specific

Therefore, even if Defendant C does not install fire-fighting systems in the instant building, it is the wind.