2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. Plaintiff 1) In the event that he/she or his/her employees did not prove that he/she or they failed to exercise due care in the custody of the deposited goods, he/she is not exempt from liability for damages against the loss of or damage to the deposited goods (Article 160 of the Commercial Act). Since the fire of this case is presumed to have occurred due to the negligence of the Defendant Company, which is the warehouse business entity, the Defendant Company is liable for damages due to the non-party company. The Defendant Company is jointly and severally liable for damages due to the non-party company’s nonperformance of obligation under the above warehouse lease agreement, and the Defendant Company B and C jointly

B) However, the Plaintiff paid insurance money to the non-party company and acquired the right to claim damages against the Defendants of the non-party company in accordance with the insurer subrogation doctrine under Article 682 of the Commercial Act. As such, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 200 million for reimbursement and the damages incurred therefrom. (2) Even if the primary claim for reimbursement is without merit, the Defendant Company bears the responsibility for tort liability or the responsibility for the structure caused by the fire in this case against the non-party company. Therefore, the Plaintiff, who

B. The Defendants’ instant fire is a fire, the cause of which is unknown, and it cannot be readily concluded that it was caused by the negligence of the Defendant company. Under Article 8 of the warehouse lease agreement, the Defendant company did not compensate for the Nonparty company, and therefore, there is no joint and several liability of Defendant B and C premised on the Defendant company’s liability