A. On March 9, 2017, around 13:30, the Defendant: (a) destroyed each art work (hereinafter “instant fire”) at the market price of the Plaintiff-owned in the vicinity of the Plaintiff, which was 95,000,000 won due to a emerculation that was scattered, and then incinerated by a emercated art work (hereinafter “instant work”).

B. The Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 4,000,000 due to the instant fire, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, appraiser D's appraisal result, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the fact of recognition of the liability for damages under paragraph (1), the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the instant fire.

3. In a claim for damages arising from a tort within the scope of liability for damages, where it is deemed that the existence of property damage was true, but it is difficult to prove the specific amount of damage in light of the nature of the case, the court may determine the amount of damage by taking into account all the relevant indirect facts, including the relationship between the parties revealed by the result of examination of evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, the background leading up to the tort and the occurrence

(1) Article 3 of the Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by Negligence provides that “If a fire is not caused by gross negligence, the person liable for damage may claim for mitigation of the amount of damages to the court.” In such a case, the court may reduce the amount of damages by taking into account the cause and scale of the fire, the subject and degree of damage, etc.

Even in cases of damages caused by tort, the amount of damages may be limited in light of the idea of the fair apportionment of damages system, and the case where a person liable for damages fails to assert the grounds for mitigation of liability.