1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claim extended in the trial are all dismissed.

2. The costs incurred after the appeal are filed by the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited this case, is the same as the part against the defendant among the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition as follows, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The 6th 9th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth

The 7th day of the judgment of the first instance court determined that “each of the above compulsory payments was not paid at all” as “one of the said compulsory payments of KRW 73,573,130 in total (22,233,920).”

The following shall be added to the eight-one (21) of the judgment of the first instance.

In addition, the plaintiff also confirmed whether he/she has subscribed to the fire insurance with the occupant of the building No. 1 of this case, around a week prior to the occurrence of the fire of this case. The plaintiff added the " from 3) of the 9th one of the judgment of the first instance to 4 (B)."

The 9th 4 and 5th 5th 1st 4 and 5th 5th 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 2th 1st 1st 1st 2th 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 202

The following shall be added to the 9th 10th 10th son of the first instance judgment:

"⑨ 이 사건 제2, 3건물에서 동시에(2014. 3. 17. 23:42경) 무인경비시스템의 화재감지와 관련하여 이상감지신호가 잡혔고(이 사건 제2건물의 경우 감지센서의 전기선이 눌어붙었을 때, 이 사건 제3건물의 경우 감지센서의 전기선이 끊어졌을 때 반응하는 신호였는데, 별개로 설치된 두 감지센서가 동시에 반응한 원인은 밝혀지지 않았다), 이 사건 제1건물에서는 2014. 3. 17. 23...