1. The defendant shall set the amount claimed by the selected parties, the amount of damages, and the amount of damages to the plaintiff (the selected parties) and the sperm attached to the attached Form.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants (hereinafter “Plaintiff et al.”) are merchants engaged in automobile sales business in the Michuhol-gu Incheon Metropolitan City building D Dong and E (hereinafter “instant building”).

The Plaintiff is the owner of the instant building DF, which is an aggregate building, and has been exercising various authority on the management, etc. of the instant building on behalf of the sperm who are the chairperson of the C Building Management Committee from 2012 to 201.

The Defendant is an unmanned security enterprise that entered into a fire monitoring contract with the Plaintiff, etc. for the instant building (hereinafter “instant security contract”) while entering into a building security contract with the Plaintiff, etc. for the instant building.

B. A fire (hereinafter “the instant fire”) occurred on January 1, 2019 from the first floor of the factory of plastic chain G, which was located far away from approximately 3.6 meters in the direction north of the instant building, at around 22:57 (hereinafter “instant fire”).

(c)

In the instant building, D Dong outer walls are destroyed or damaged by glass windows, entrances, etc., and parts of air conditioners and communication cables were installed, and vehicles parked in the instant building, etc. suffered damages, such as their damage or destruction.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 20 (including branch numbers if there are numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and each of the items and images of Eul, the head of the Incheon U.S. fire station of this court, and H Co., Ltd., the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant had a duty of care to prevent the occurrence of a fire or the spread of a fire due to the installation of a fire alarm device without any defect in the security contract of this case, but did not work entirely at all at the time of the fire alarm device installed by the Defendant at the time of the fire of this case. For this reason, the Defendant did not have a duty of care to prevent the occurrence of a fire or the spread of a fire.