The defendant.

[2] (2) The existence or absence of liability for damages due to nonperformance of the duty to return the leased object, ② the small portion of 14 pages 16 through 15 Na 4.B(5) is as follows, ③ the liability amount of KRW 17,805,937 “B” in KRW 14,24,749 ( KRW 17,805,937,937 x 80%) in the first instance judgment, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The part of the leased object [Attachment 1] (2) where the lessee is unable to fulfill the lessee’s duty to return the leased object due to the lapse of the leased object due to fire, etc., the lessee is liable to compensate for damages incurred due to the nonperformance of the lessee’s duty to return the leased object unless the lessee proves that the nonperformance was due to a cause not attributable to himself/herself, and the same applies to cases where the specific cause of the fire, etc., such as the fire, has not been revealed.

In addition, this legal doctrine also applies to cases where, although the duty to return the leased object was not in an impossible condition at the time of the termination of the lease, the returned building sought damages on the ground that the fire was damaged by the fire (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da86895, 86901, May 18, 2017). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the fact that, while the instant building was occupied and used with its wife, B leased the instant unit from the interesting life to the interesting country, the cause unknown in the inside of the instant unit was destroyed by a fire that occurred while the said unit was occupied and used together with its wife, part of the instant unit was damaged as seen earlier. However, as seen earlier, Eul’s entries or images of evidence 3-1 through 33 are alone as a good manager with regard to the preservation of the instant unit.