1. As to Defendant C and D’s respective amount of KRW 10,280,00 for each of the plaintiffs A, KRW 13,300,000 for the plaintiff B, and each of the above amounts, respectively.

. I considered.

Fire-prevention possibility: The inside of the ceiling, which is a fire-fighting point, is a structure that makes it difficult to extinguish fire by intentionally approaching it, was dried at the time, 119 report was filed immediately after the fire discovery, was covered by fire insurance, but there is no peculiar time, and there is little possibility that there is no witness.

Machines and gas factors are clear that there is no correlation;

다만 전기적 요인에 의한 발화가능성은 존재할 수 있지만(이 사건 제3건물의 천장 내부에 다수의 옥내 전기배선이 있고, 천장 누수로 인하여 공사를 자주 했다는 점, 천장 내부는 다른 열원에 의해 발화되기 어려운 구조인 반면, 전선의 꺾임, 눌림, 진동, 과전류, 트래킹 등 전기적 요인에 의해 화재 발생은 가능한 점 등), 심하게 소실된 상태에서 배선계통의 확인이 어렵고, 이 사건 제3건물 후면부 창문쪽에서 냉동창고와 연결된 CV16㎟*3C 연선에 용융흔적은 있으나 1차, 2차 용융흔인지 여부는 판단할 수 없으며, 환풍기의 연결배선은 소실되어 찾을 수가 없는 등 전기적 특이점을 발견할 수 없어, 결국 이 사건 화재의 원인은 알 수 없다는 것이다.

F. Defendant C and D used the instant building for a long-term leased store. The said Defendants installed a freezing warehouse in the instant building 3 before several years during which the instant fire occurred. Defendant C and D installed a ventilation machine not later than three months prior to the occurrence of the instant fire.

On the other hand, the defendant C completed the installation work of M-heating air conditioners in front of the building of this case at the time of the occurrence of the fire of this case, and completed the installation work of M-heating and heating devices, and then reported the fire to Q Q in 119, and then cut off the body.

[Ground of recognition] without any dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 4, Eul 1, 2, 3, Eul 1 through 5 (including each number), and arguments.