1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures and sells reinforced concrete structure factories located in Ansan-si, a member D (hereinafter “Plaintiff factory”) with the printing street for the purpose of its printing.

B. Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) is a company that sells plastic products at a 2nd floor of reinforced concrete structure sloping roof and sloping roof (hereinafter “instant factory”) located in Ansan-si Group E, Ansan-si, and Defendant B is the representative director of the Defendant Co., Ltd. and the owner of the instant factory.

C. The factory of this case is composed of a temporary building of light fluorries and 120 square meters of the total floor area constructed behind the factory building (hereinafter “instant warehouse”). The Defendant Company stored plastic sheet produced inside the Pyeongtaek-dong building in the instant warehouse.

On November 11, 2015, at around 10:10, a fire occurred in the instant warehouse (hereinafter “instant fire”), and as a result, a fire was destroyed by the wall, internal office fixtures, etc. on the outer wall of the Plaintiff’s factory building adjacent thereto.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 51, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 8, 9 (including relevant numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Main Claim 1) The warehouse of this case was located immediately adjacent to the space that produces molets from high temperature, and with strong combustibility, and it was stored with plastic molets. The storage of this case was also a vinyl with high combustibility.

Nevertheless, the Defendants failed to fulfill their duty of care necessary for the prevention of human and physical damage, such as allocating fire managers or keeping alarm devices and fire extinguishing equipment, and thereby the Plaintiff factory suffered property damage caused by burning.

B. Therefore, the Defendants, the possessor of the instant warehouse, jointly do so to the Plaintiff.