(a) deliver each real estate listed in the separate sheet;

(b) 43,533.

A. On August 23, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) leased each of the instant real estate to the Defendant for the purpose of Piping for the purpose of wadding; (b) the lease deposit amounting to KRW 50,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,200,000; and (c) the lease period from September 1, 2013 to August 31, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”); and (c) at the time, the Plaintiff allowed the Defendant to use, free of charge, the equipment for photographing the Plaintiff’s possession, male bed, and female bed.

B. On February 12, 2014, when the Defendant had received delivery of each of the instant real estate and used it as a wactor, a fire occurred in the Hacma of the building following the building on February 15:30, 2014, and the inside of the building was removed from the outer wall of the building, and the fire was destroyed by the equipment, clothing, etc. owned by the Plaintiff, which was located within the building.

(hereinafter “instant fire”). C.

According to the findings of the Mapo-gu Police Station on the instant fire, “The causes of the instant fire, although CCTVs, surrounding the building, etc. were conducted, are unclear.”

According to the results of the investigation of the Masan Fire Station on the fire of this case, in relation to the point of birth and burning process of the fire of this case, the fire of this case is presumed to be the first combustion part of the wall be presumed to be the front combustion, considering that the V-type burner is observed from the outside wall of the building and the witness's fire level and the burning pattern are consistent, and the direction of burning is observed from the outer side of the wall after the display site of the building, and the fire is presumed to have been enlarged within the outside of the building. In relation to the cause of the fire, there is no possibility of fire due to mechanical factors, electrical factors, and gas leakage, and there is no possibility that the fire possibility by a third party cannot be completely ruled out, but it is unlikely that the fire of this case is caused by the outside person, and it is caused by a fire outside the building, and it is unlikely through the sand site panel.