1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above part shall be dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who engages in retail business of telecommunications equipment in the building located in the Sinsung City (hereinafter “Plaintiff store”) with the trade name of “D,” and the Defendant is a person who engages in food business in the building immediately next to the Plaintiff store (hereinafter “Defendant store”) under the trade name of “F” with her husband E.

B. On November 28, 2012, around 14:10 on November 28, 2012, the Defendant’s husband E destroyed a fire within the Defendant’s store to put the Defendant’s store in a toilet (hereinafter “instant fire”) and destroyed the Defendant’s store by fire to the next buildings, such as the Plaintiff store.

C. On August 25, 2015, the Suwon District Court (No. 2014No2132) rendered a judgment of not guilty on the following facts charged against the Defendant’s husband E.

The Prosecutor appeal is pending in Supreme Court Decision 2015Do14128.

Defendant E of the facts charged against Suwon District Court 2014No2132 is a person operating “F”.

피고인은 2012. 11. 28. 14:10경 화성시 C 자신이 운영하는 ‘F’에서 닭튀김 기계에 전원을 연결하여 예열시키던 중 주방에서 나와 식당 내부를 청소하고 화장실을 가는 등 상당 시간 자리를 비우게 되었다.

In such a case, inasmuch as there is a risk of a fire due to the sprinking of food in the sprinking machine, if the sprinking machine is not put in, the Defendant, as the Defendant, has a duty of care to prevent the occurrence of a fire by taking into account the heat condition of oil on the side of the sprinking machine, or by blocking all of the sprinking machine if the sprinking machine is infry, without blocking all of the sprinking machine, and thereby causing a fire due to a negligence in the sptruding machine.

Accordingly, the inside of the F, which the Defendant operated, was transferred to the “G” operated by the J, thereby causing damage to KRW 13 million.