A. The plaintiff.

A. On May 22, 2014, the Plaintiff leased from E the building indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”); Defendant C, from E, May 18, 2014; Defendant D, from E, May 30, 2014; and Defendant D, from E, 304 units of the instant building; and F, from E on June 1, 2014, 301 units of the instant building.

B. Defendant B purchased the instant building from E on May 2014, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 18, 2014.

G on June 17, 2014, leased the instant building 101 from Defendant B.

C. On July 24, 2014, the instant building 402 and the section for common use (hereinafter “instant accident”) were destroyed by a fire that could not identify the cause from 08:35 to 402.

[Ground of Recognition] Statement Nos. 1, 3, and 4, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 (including the number number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings (as to Defendant B)

2. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C and D

A. Although the Plaintiff was not liable to compensate Defendant C and D for damages due to the instant accident, the Defendants filed the instant lawsuit to confirm that the said liability did not exist.

(b) Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act of the applicable provisions of Acts (a judgment made by deeming the relevant provisions as private investors);

3. Determination as to the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B

A. Where a lessee’s obligation to return an object of lease has become impossible, the lessee is responsible to prove that the nonperformance was not due to the lessee’s cause attributable to the lessee, and if the lessee is not liable even if the cause of the fire is unknown in the event that the leased building was destroyed by a fire, the lessee is responsible for the preservation of the leased building.