채무부존재확인
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
1. The reasoning for this part of this Court’s explanation is as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and this part of this Court’s reasoning is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the same Act.
2. The plaintiff's assertion
A. Since the fire in this case occurred after a string of the entire building, which had been inspected by Defendant B as a whole before the formation of the building, and the electrical business operator who was requested by Defendant B to inspect was removed from the control team of the automatic device classification and closing machines installed on the rooftop (hereinafter referred to as “Automatic device classification and closing machines”), the fire in this case is likely to occur due to the electrical factors or inspection processes of the building itself.
Therefore, Defendant B, the building owner, is responsible for the instant fire.
B. Even if the fire was caused by the instant singing-out electric power line, the responsibility to manage the electric power line is against the Defendant B, who is the owner of the building. Thus, the Plaintiff was incurred outside the area where the Plaintiff should perform its duty of care as a good manager to preserve the leased object, and it was not caused by the defect of the structure occupied by the Plaintiff.
Therefore, the Plaintiff is not liable for damages to the Defendants.
3. Determination
A. Legal doctrine 1) Where a lessee’s obligation to return an object of lease becomes impossible due to a lessee’s nonperformance, the lessee shall be responsible to prove that the nonperformance was not attributable to the lessee’s cause attributable to the lessee, and where the leased building was destroyed by a fire and the cause of the fire is unknown, the lessee must prove that the lessee fulfilled his/her duty of care to preserve the leased building.