1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The Defendants of basic facts hold 1/4 shares in each of the G Building on the fourth floor of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F Ground (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”)

However, around 00:03 on March 28, 2014, a fire (hereinafter “instant fire”) occurred on the third floor of the instant building, and both offices, warehouses, and other offices located on the third floor and the fourth floor of the instant building and a new combustion or air strings inside the said offices, warehouses, etc. In addition, around the third floor and the third floor adjoining to the instant building (hereinafter “the instant adjacent building”) were destroyed by fire, and both the third floor and their rooftop parts of the instant adjacent building and the rooftop bank, etc. were destroyed.

Meanwhile, in light of the fact that the fire of this case was presumed to have occurred on the third floor of the building of this case, and that there were many electric power failure tracess in the third floor area (No. 301) of the building of this case, the fire of this case is likely to occur due to electrical factors, but it is not proven that the inside and around the third floor of the building of this case is serious, and the degree of loss is serious, and that it was caused by external factors.

In addition, the possibility of fire due to other causes (fire prevention, gas, corrosion, etc.) has not been confirmed.

In this case, a paper fire-fighting team that investigated the fire site of this case was prepared with a report "unexplosion causing fire".

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 6, 10, Eul 1 through 9, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Although the Plaintiff asserted that the instant building was leased to another person at the time of the instant fire, the Plaintiff directly managed the instant building through K, etc., the Defendants constitute the possessor of the instant building.

Therefore, the Defendants are liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages incurred by the Plaintiff, who was residing in the rooftop of the building adjacent to the instant case and lost his residence due to the instant fire, as the possessor or at least the owner of the instant building pursuant to Article 758(1) of the Civil Act.