1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The patriarch of the judgment of the first instance and the patriarch of the judgment of the first instance may be drawn up in some cases, but if the plaintiff addss the reasons for the patriarch mainly to the appellate court while citing the judgment of the first instance, the plaintiff was able to easily recognize the judgment of the first instance court because the plaintiff could easily recognize the claim in the appellate court.

The court's explanation on this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following dismissals or additions among the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this court's explanation is acceptable pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 3, the phrase “A 5, 6, and 3 through 7” in Part 9 shall be deemed to read “each description of evidence A 5, 3 through 7.”

After the 4th page, the following shall be added:

The plaintiff asserts that the studio of the place where the fire of this case occurred is equipped with a budio for customers, and that the fire is likely to occur in the place where the brumat cremation is located due to smoking by the customers who use the studio, and the unclaimed cigarette butts, etc., and that the fire does not occur immediately in the case of the fire due to brut of tobacco butts, and thus, the plaintiff could not confirm it.

However, as seen earlier, the fire in this case appears to have been caused by artificial acts using the bruas cremation paper, etc., which appears to be a shot tool as a result of the investigation by the National Institute of Scientific Investigation and Research and the National Institute of Disaster Prevention and Testing affiliated with the Korea Fire Insurance Association. In the case of artificial combustion, the artificial combustion occurred at a short time, and if there was an artificial combustion by a third party other than the plaintiff, the plaintiff could immediately be identified. ② If the tobacco butts were to have caused the fire in this case, as alleged by the plaintiff, at the scene of the fire, the plaintiff could have immediately discovered it.