A. On November 2005, the Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract with respect to the 4th floor above the ground B and Dong Young-si, with the insurance coverage amounting to KRW 100 million, and the insurance period from November 8, 2005 to November 8, 2010.

B. On August 22, 2008, the Defendant leased the second floor of the above building (hereinafter “the instant building”) as KRW 10 million, monthly rent, 400,000,000 from B. On August 30, 2008, the Defendant destroyed the inside of the instant building due to an unexpected fire that is presumed to have been discovered in the part of the entrance and exit between the Defendant and his family members at the house of this case (hereinafter “the instant fire”) and caused an accident that causes damage to the building’s outer wall and the stairs room.

C. The Plaintiff calculated the amount of damages for the instant housing owned by B due to the instant fire at KRW 20,181,000, and paid KRW 20,181,000 as insurance money under the insurance contract to B on December 19, 208.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry and video of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Where the lessee becomes liable for damages due to nonperformance of the lessee’s liability for the return of the leased object, the lessee shall be responsible to prove that the impossibility of performance is not attributable to the lessee’s cause attributable to him/her, and where the leased building was destroyed by fire and the cause of the fire is unknown, if the lessee is exempted from such liability, he/she shall prove that he/she has fulfilled his/her duty of due care as a good manager for the preservation of

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da57351, Jan. 19, 2001). According to the above facts, the instant housing, which is the leased object stipulated in the lease agreement with the Defendant, was destroyed or damaged by the instant fire, and thus, the Defendant’s obligation to return the leased object was impossible, and the instant fire was attributable to the Defendant’s fault.