1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

According to the results of the fact-finding of the court of the first instance on the rejection of the evidence of the trial and the rejection of the evidences of the court of the first instance, the fact-finding on the lighting boat installed on the H lighting signboard is presumed to have been removed from the connecting cable line, and the fire is presumed to have occurred as a result of the fall in the connecting cable, and the plastic house is likely to have been burned more than the buildings such as general bricks.

In addition, each image of Gap evidence Nos. 11-3 submitted by the plaintiff at the trial shows that the point of extinguishment of the fire of this case is behind H lighting signboards.

However, according to the results of the appraisal by the National Institute of Scientific Investigation, the electrical characteristics of the relevant fire do not distinguish, and the results of the appraisal by the Korea Electrical Safety Corporation have operated normally at the time of the fire, and the electrical characteristics could not be found at the time of the fire, and at the indoor electric power ship, the cause of the fire is presumed to have been caused by other causes, and the electrical characteristics did not appear.

In addition, as a result of the fact inquiry conducted by the court of the first instance, the part concerning the expansion of fire in the plastic houses is merely a general theory, but does not point out any defects in the establishment, preservation, etc. of the H plastic houses.

Ultimately, even if the evidence submitted by the plaintiff in the first instance court was found to be the result of the fact inquiry conducted by the court of the first instance, it is still insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion even if Gap's evidence No. 11-1 and No. 3 were taken

The reasoning for this court’s explanation according to the acceptance of the judgment of the first instance court is as follows: (a) the fact inquiry result by the court of the first instance, which is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff’s assertion as evidence of the first instance court; and (b) the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except the rejection of each video of No. 11-1 or No. 3, and therefore, (c) it

The conclusion is.