1. In cases where a fire, which occurred in the part of a building owned by a lessor that was partially leased for use and profit-making, destroyed not only the leased part of the building but also the non-leased part (hereinafter “non-leased part of the building”) but also the lessor suffered property damage therefrom, if the lessee proves that the lessee breached his/her contractual duty related to the occurrence of a fire, such as providing the cause of the fire by violating his/her duty to preserve and manage the building, and there is proximate causation between such breach of contractual duty and the damage to the non-leased part, and the damage to the non-leased part constitutes ordinary damages due to such breach of contractual duty

In cases where it can be seen that the damages incurred due to the circumstances, a lessee is liable to compensate the lessor for the damages incurred to the non-leased premises pursuant to Articles 390 and 393 of the Civil Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da86895, May 18, 2017).

2. Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for not only the damages incurred to the leased object but also the damages incurred to the non-leased non-leased premises due to the fire, as well as the damages incurred to the Plaintiff, inasmuch as there is insufficient evidence to prove that the Defendant fulfilled its duty to preserve the leased object, since the interior of the fifth floor of the instant building, which is the object of the instant lease, was destroyed by inundation or flood-proof fire-fighting, and the interior of the instant building, which is the object of the instant lease, constitutes an integral structure in mutual maintenance and existence with the non-leased premises of the instant building.

3. However, according to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted, with respect to the cause of the instant fire, the reason for the lower judgment and the evidence reveals the following facts: (a) no possibility exists to prevent fire; and (b) electric or mechanical factors cannot be excluded because all broadcasting facilities are installed in the office space, such as electric or mechanical factors as electric storage, computer reproduction, chropers, wave fluor, cold conditioning, and broadcasting equipment; and (c) there are no gas leakage and human care, etc.; and (d) the Gyeonggi Provincial Police Agency judged that there is a fire that is difficult to identify the cause of the instant fire, which is difficult to identify the exact cause of the fire, and it is impossible to discuss the cause of the fire because it is impossible to find out the fact that the characteristics that can act as the source of the remaining substances in the site are not identified, and that it is impossible to discuss about the occurrence of crimes, such as the prevention and extinguishment,

Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is difficult to view that the Defendant, a lessee, violated the duty to preserve and manage the fire of this case and provided the cause of the fire of this case, and thus, it is difficult to deem that there was a breach of contractual duty by the Defendant related to the occurrence of the fire of this case. Therefore, the Defendant

4. Nevertheless, solely on the grounds stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant was liable for damages incurred to the non-leased premises of the instant building. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the lessee’s liability to compensate for damages incurred to the non-leased premises of the building owned by the lessor due to a fire in the leased premises, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations,

5. Therefore, without examining the defendant's remaining grounds of appeal, the part against the defendant among the judgment below is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jae-tae

Chief Justice Cho Jae-hee

Justices Park Sang-ok