1. The appeal by Defendant B and the incidental appeal by the Plaintiff against Defendant B are dismissed, respectively.

2. Appeal.

A. In light of the circumstances at the lower level of the part of Defendant B’s possession, the fire of this case was first generated, and the Defendant C was burned up to the part of Defendant C’s possession, and in the process, each of the above heat reduction devices installed in the part of Defendant C’s possession were operated in turn.

On June 24, 2018, when the instant fire occurred, around 07:29 around Sundays, and at the time, there were no workers who worked in the instant building, and there seems to have been correction of both the two parts of the Defendant C’s possession toward the above internal passage.

(C) The instant building consists of a light resistant sand position panel, and thus the combustion expansion was rapid.

B. If the instant fire occurred in Defendant C’s occupied part, the signal appears to have been cut first from the heat reduction machine installed in Defendant C’s occupied part (attached Form 3 P02, P*9) before the postponement was leaked to the outside through the above internal passage (inasmuch as a fire occurs inside the building that has been pushed down and fireproofly damaged, it seems that the temperature increase and the exhaustion of the temperature therefrom were more prompt). On the back of the building of this case, the point at which the postponement first occurred from the lower side of the building of this case is the relocation around June 24, 2018 (No. 8-2), and the heat reduction machine installed in the south side of the Defendant C’s occupied part of the Defendant C’s occupied part at the point of time (No. 3:02 of the Attached Form No. 3): the point at which the signal was cut first from the point at 07:48 of the same day to the point at which the fire was cut first to the point at 4:400 of the same time.

The point at which a signal is reduced to more than 07:30:13 at around the 07:30 :13 at the time the fire in this case occurred in the heat reduction machine installed on the north-dong side of the part occupied by the Defendant C (attached Form 3 P*9), and the point at which the fire in this case occurred in full.