2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. From March 2, 2011 to March 2, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement on general steel structure with the Defendant, and other facilities for living (office) with the second class neighborhood living (office) of Pyeongtaek-si D’s ground structure, and the second class neighborhood living (office) of the roof 1, 200 square meters, and 330 square meters of the first class neighborhood living facilities (retailing and manufacturing shop) of the roof 1, 200 square meters (hereinafter “the instant building”). The Plaintiff engaged in manufacturing and wholesale sales, such as a mutual flicking with the trade name “E,” at that place.

B. On February 13, 2014, around 21:33, a fire that occurred in the instant building and caused the instant building to be removed (hereinafter “instant fire”) and according to the results of joint on-site investigations conducted by the Pyeongtaek Fire Station and Pyeongtaek Police Station, the cause of the fire is “the cause of the fire”.

C. At the request of the Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd., which investigated losses caused by the instant fire, presented the opinion that “In light of the fact that business was terminated and there was no fire at the scene, and that neighboring residents who initially observed the instant fire have been fire on the front wall of the instant building, it is presumed that the fire was caused by electrical factors, but it is impossible to confirm that the fire was severely damaged at the scene of the fire.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including provisional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. After the Plaintiff’s assertion was leased the instant building and then the toilets, etc. in the building were found to be on-and-off, and the Defendant demanded C who managed the instant building on behalf of the Defendant to conduct an overall inspection and repair of electric wires several times, but the Defendant did not comply therewith.

As a result of the inspection of the building adjacent to the same structure after the fire of this case, it was confirmed that there is an error in the electrical ship, and the certified damage adjuster is also not aware of the cause of the fire.