A. 1) On February 28, 2016, Defendant D, each of the Plaintiffs owned 1/3 shares from the Plaintiffs on February 28, 2016, was 3 Dong-dong (factory 320.76 square meters, warehouse 150 square meters, warehouse 59 square meters, and hereinafter “instant building”).

) The lease deposit amount of KRW 30,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 3,500,000, and the lease period of KRW 15,000 was determined and leased from March 15, 2016 to March 14, 2019 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

(2) According to the instant lease agreement, Defendant D operated plastic crushing company in the building. Defendant E, who was engaged in the business of removing and crushing waste electronic equipment, was placed on September 22, 2016 on the spons installed in the building and moved to plastic materials that were accumulated in the vicinity of the Panel on the sandd Location.

As a result, a fire occurred, which caused a factory, warehouse, and block of the instant building to be destroyed by a fire.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant fire”). [Ground for recognition] There is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3, Eul evidence No. 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

B. 1) According to the fact that Defendant E is liable for damages arising from Defendant E’s tort, Defendant E is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by negligence, even though he had a duty to take safety measures to prevent the fire from sprinking out, in consideration of the characteristics of the oxygen cutting machine, by examining whether there is inflammable substances in the vicinity. As such, Defendant E is liable to compensate for damages caused by a fire. (ii) The lessee is obliged to perform the duty of due care as a good manager for the preservation of the leased building. In the event that the lessee is unable to perform his obligation to return the leased object, if the lessee is liable for damages due to nonperformance, the nonperformance is not attributable to the lessee’s fault.