All appeals are dismissed.

Of the costs of appeal, the costs of appeal between the Plaintiffs and Defendant Q, R, S, T, U, and V are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Plaintiffs’ grounds of appeal against Defendant Q and R

A. (1) As to the grounds of appeal on the second and third emergency exits, etc., the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning after comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, and based on the circumstances in its reasoning, prior to the amendment by Act No. 12207, Jan. 7, 2014, such as ① the second emergency exit, portable emergency illumination, and video and sound breaker of the main point of this case, etc.

b. The fire-fighting systems Act;

(1) Article 9(1) of the former Special Act on the Safety Control of Publicly Used Establishments (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013) rather than “fire-fighting systems, etc.” established in the instant building under Article 9(1).

(b) The Public Use Establishments Act;

(2) The 3 emergency exit at the main point of this case, which is a publicly used establishment, constitutes “safety facilities, etc.” under Article 9(1) of the Act, and the 3 emergency exit at the main point of this case, was established voluntarily upon the recommendation of the person in charge of the Busan Jin Fire Station, without any legal obligation to install. As to these facilities, Defendant Q, and the fire safety controller or the fire safety controller appointed by R (the name before the amendment of the Act on August 4, 201) were “fire safety manager”.

hereinafter referred to as "fire safety manager"

(2) Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the provisions of relevant statutes and the records, the lower court’s judgment that AO does not have the duty to maintain and manage portable emergency lighting, video sound breaker, and third emergency exit installed at the main points of this case is justifiable and acceptable. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the relationship between the Fire-Fighting System Act and the Multi-Use Facility Act, or the Fire-Fighting System Act, or the duties of fire safety controllers under the Fire-Fighting System Act, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal. (3) However, AO’s main points of this case