1. In cases where a fire, which occurred in the part of a building owned by a lessor that was partially leased for use and profit-making, destroyed not only the leased part of the building (hereinafter “non-leased part”), but also the lessor incurred property damage, the lessee is liable to compensate the lessor for damage to the non-leased part of the building pursuant to Articles 390 and 393 of the Civil Act, if the lessee proves that the lessee breached his/her duty of preservation and management, such as providing the cause of the fire by violating the duty of preservation and management, and reasonable causation exists between the lessee’s breach of duty and the damage to the non-leased part, and the damage to the non-leased part constitutes ordinary damages due to such duty of violation of duty, or if the lessee is deemed to fall under damage due to special circumstances that the lessee knew

In such a case, the lessor should assert and prove that the lessee breached the contractual duty of the lessee related to the occurrence of a fire, such as providing the cause of a fire by violating the duty of preservation and management, and there is reasonable causation between such breach of duty and the damage to the non-leased premises, and that the damage to the non-leased premises is within the scope of damage to be compensated pursuant to Article 393 of the Civil Act

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da86895, 86901 Decided May 18, 2017). 2. A.

The judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, for the reasons indicated in its holding, is as follows. (1) The fire of this case in the commercial building of this case occurred in the restaurant of this case, which is one of the parts of the commercial building of this case, but the cause of the fire was not revealed, and the submitted evidence alone is the co-defendant A (A) who is the lessee of the restaurant of this case.