1. The Defendant: 6,271,500 won to Plaintiff A; 1,33,00 won to Plaintiff B; 1,509,000 won to Plaintiff C; and 2,47.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant, as the owner of the K-ground building in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant fire building”), was operating a household store with “L” at a place.

B. 1) The Plaintiff A is a neighboring building of Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant neighboring building”).

(2) The Plaintiff G, and I are the husband and children of the Plaintiff, who are the lessee of the third floor, and the Plaintiff B, C, and D are the husband and children of the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff

F and H are the children of Plaintiff G, and Plaintiff E is the mother of Plaintiff I.

C. Around April 19, 2013, N requested the Defendant’s husbandO to perform a roof reinforcement work of the instant fire building, and the construction cost was also paid as a daily allowance, instead of separately setting the construction period.

N from around that time, the three copies of the three which he started to work together with the roof reinforcement work was carried out.

(hereinafter “instant construction”) D.

On April 21, 2013, the fire occurred after the flames were melted on the roof of the fire building of this case.

(hereinafter “the instant fire”). The instant fire caused damage, such as the destruction of the outer wall of the instant adjoining building, and the postponement of the fire, which occurred inside the instant neighboring building, and the fire fighters destroyed part of the glass windows of the instant adjoining building or damaged the household tools during the process of extinguishing the instant fire.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 8 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 2 through 6, Gap evidence 16, Eul evidence 16, the video and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether liability for damages is established;

A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1 of this case occurred due to N's negligence, and the defendant is the employer who ordered N to work, and is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the fire of this case.

Furthermore, the defendant's contractor.