2. Determination

A. Where a lessee’s obligation to return an object of lease becomes impossible, if the lessee wishes to be exempted from liability for damages due to the nonperformance, the lessee is responsible to prove that the nonperformance was not due to the lessee’s cause attributable to the lessee. If the leased building was destroyed by a fire and the cause of the fire is unknown, if the lessee is exempted from liability, then the lessee must prove that the lessee fulfilled his/her duty of care to preserve the leased building (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da36273, Sept. 21, 199). This legal doctrine equally applies to cases where the lessee seeks compensation for damages on the ground that the returned building was destroyed by a fire, even though the obligation to return the object of lease was not impossible at the end of the lease, (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da96984, Apr. 29, 2010).

In light of the above legal principles, with regard to whether the Defendant fulfilled the duty of care as a good manager in the preservation of the store of this case as the lessee of the store of this case, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleading, i.e., the number of No. 1 to No. 13, No. 1 to No. 2, No. 4-1 to No. 4, No. 5, No. 1, No. 7, and No. 9 through No. 11, and the overall purport of the pleading, i.e., the store of this case was attached to 103 leased and used by F for the first witness of the fire of this case, and the partitions, which constitutes the boundary of the above two stores, was installed in both parts of the above store, but after the occurrence of the fire of this case, F made a statement that the above panty fire of this case was put on the front part of the store of this case, and was put on the door of the fire of this case.