A. On July 207, the Plaintiff purchased 31.2 square meters of the Changwon-si E-Ground Boakdong E-ground Boakdong, cement block block 12.5 square meters of a store with cement block slive roof, wood tank 17.5 square meters of a house with 17.5 square meters of a house with a wooden tank and a roof 17.5 square meters of a house with a single roof, etc.

(A) Although the 31.2 square meters of a sap set forth in the sap set is recorded in a certified copy of the register and a building register, the above cement block structure slive roof 12.5 square meters and the 17.5 square meters of a wooden slive roof roof 17.5 square meters of a house with a wooden slive roof are not registered in a certified copy of the register and a building register, it was sold to a building other than the above auction procedure)

The Plaintiff leased the instant building to Defendant B with 12.5 square meters and 17.5 square meters and 17.5 square meters and 17.5 square meters of the instant building (hereinafter “instant building”), and the Defendant C, who was the Defendant’s father, has occupied and used the instant building.

On November 2015, the Plaintiff renewed the lease contract with Defendant B, and leased the instant building to Defendant B at KRW 5 million, monthly rent of KRW 150,000,000.

C. The instant building was destroyed by a fire that occurred around February 19, 2016, around 01:17.

(hereinafter “the instant fire”). On the other hand, in the report of the fire situation and the investigation report of the fire scene prepared by the chief of the Msan fire station immediately after the instant fire, it was presumed that the Defendant C’s statement, etc. that he was able to see that he was able to fluently handle the arche of the arche on the ground of the Defendant C’s smell, while she was fluoring a smell with the kitchen in the direction of the kitchen, and that the cause of other fire (gas, electricity, fire) was not confirmed.

However, in a criminal case against Defendant C, even though it is suspected that the fire occurred due to Defendant C’s negligence, it is a disposition to the effect that there is no suspicion on the ground that there is lack of reasonable evidence to support it (the head office of the District Prosecutors’ Office, last office of the District Prosecutors’ Office, 2016 type 5923, August 23, 2016).