[2] In a case where there are several different appraisal results as to a certain specific matter, whether the appraisal method may be rejected solely on the ground that one of the appraisal results differs from the other appraisal result without examining and investigating the legitimacy of the appraisal method (negative), and in a case where two or more appraisal institutions present contradictory or unclear appraisal opinions with respect to the same appraisal matter, measures to be taken by the court to recognize the fact by employing the appraisal result as evidence / Whether such a legal principle is equally applied to a case where a document stating an appraisal opinion prepared by a person with professional knowledge and experience has been submitted by means of documentary evidence (affirmative)

[3] In a case where Party A and Party B claimed that a fire occurred in the area controlled and managed by either Party B and the other Party B, and sought compensation for damages against each other, the case holding that the lower court erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations by means of taking necessary measures or exercising appropriate right of explanation in order to resolve the inconsistency with the identification of fire stations, the National Police Agency, the Scientific Investigation Agency, and the National Scientific Investigation Agency regarding specific matters, such as the extinguishment point, or by taking appropriate measures or exercising the right of explanation, which are not sufficient to recognize that the fire occurred in any area controlled and managed by Party A and Party B, the lessor, and the lessee

1. As to the ground of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the ground of appeal No. 1 by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)

A. The principle of free evaluation of evidence, which is declared by Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act, means that it is not necessary to be bound by formal and legal evidence rules, and does not allow a judge’s arbitrary judgment. Thus, the recognition of facts shall be in accordance with logical and empirical rules, based on the principle of justice and equity, based on the admissible evidence that has undergone lawful evidence examination procedures, and even if the fact-finding belongs to the discretion of the fact-finding court, it shall not exceed the limit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 82Da317, Aug. 24, 1982; 2013Da13832, Jun. 10, 2016).

In addition, where a number of appraisal results conflict with any other matter, the appraisal results may not be rejected solely on the ground that one appraisal result differs from another appraisal result without examining and examining whether the method of each appraisal result is legitimate (see Supreme Court Decisions 91Da34561, Mar. 27, 1992; 91Da34561, Feb. 14, 2008; 94Da64181, Feb. 14, 2008; 2007Da64181, Feb. 14, 2008). In addition, in a case where two or more appraisal institutions have presented contradictory or unclear appraisal opinions on the same appraisal result as evidence, the court has to take active measures such as ordering each appraisal institution to supplement the appraisal report, or disclosing accurate appraisal opinions through examination of a witness or fact-finding, etc., unless the evidence is supported in order to recognize the fact-finding by the fact-finding court as evidence.

B. The lower court determined that it was insufficient to recognize that the instant fire occurred in any of the areas controlled and managed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) who is the lessor, and the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) who is the lessee, as the lessee, inasmuch as the Plaintiff store, which is the object of the instant lease, became unable to use and make profits from the leased purpose any longer due to the instant fire, on the following grounds.

① The cause of the instant fire cannot be determined as the fall of the electric power boat.

② Although the Plaintiff’s store and the lessor’s Defendant’s housing are attached to each other and a fire is presumed to have occurred in the vicinity thereof, the number of fire extinguishment points does not coincide with the identification results of the Sungju Fire Station, the Gyeongbuk Provincial Police Agency, the Scientific Investigative Team, and the National Scientific Investigative Institute.

③ Nonparty 1, who was a witness at the time of the instant fire, testified that “I went to the house of the Defendant, but could not see it on the opposite side.”

④ Although the result of the identification of the National Institute of Scientific Investigation (hereinafter “the result of identification with the country”) seems to correspond to the point of extinguishment claimed by the Defendant, it is difficult to readily conclude the accuracy of the result, and it is difficult to readily conclude the accurate source of extinguishment with the country, as well as the result of identification with the country, since it was conducted on-site investigations after about two years since the occurrence of the instant fire.

C. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept in light of the foregoing legal doctrine.

1) The country of identification and the result of identification adopted by the court below as evidence presumed the point of origin inside the Plaintiff store. The main reasons are as follows.

① On the rooftop of a neighboring building, the burning form of the roof of the instant fire in the Plaintiff shop shows the form of burning around the surrounding part, centering on the part A of the attached Form 4 of the lower judgment.

② If flames were emitted in the attached Form 4 drawings Y or B, near the Defendant’s housing, and the flames spread around the Defendant’s housing, the shape burned by the flames approaching the Plaintiff’s store B andY parts shall be consistently identified due to the continuity of burning, but such identification is not confirmed.

③ The peculiar points of electric sprink melting by electrical or electrical joint lines, etc. are discovered in the part A of the attached drawing Nos. 4 above, and the peculiar points of electric power frequency melting by electric joint lines are found in the electric power source line. On the other hand, the electrical peculiar points are not identified in the electric wires, etc. within the scope of verifiable part A and T from the electric power source line.

However, the nation and water identification result are mainly based on the type of burning on the rooftop of a neighboring building. The reference to the foregoing identification result is that “it was difficult to specifically ascertain whether the situation at the time of the investigation was modified as much as the time of the fire, since the two years have passed since the instant fire occurred after the fire,” and thus, it was difficult to ascertain whether the situation at the time of the investigation was modified as much as the time of the fire.” Thus, in order to recognize the fact by adopting the result of the State and the water identification as evidence, first of all, it should be determined whether there was a transformation to the scene of the fire during that period, depending on the possibility of such transformation.

In addition, if flames were turned out in the part A of the attached Form 4, which is located in the Plaintiff store, such as the result of drinking with the Plaintiff store, the burning shape by the flames approaching the part A and the part A, which is the Defendant’s housing, seems to be consistent. However, the State and the water identification result indicate that the burning shape by the flames expanded in the part B and the part B, the Defendant’s housing, is also observed. Such a shape is unclear as to whether the point of birth is compatible with the identification outcome as seen in the attached Form 4 as part A.

Furthermore, it is reasonable to view the point of combustion as a point of combustion near the Defendant’s house that is highly damaged by fire in light of the speed and degree of loss of fire, based on the awareness of the investigation into the Sungju Fire Station and the Gyeongbuk District Police Agency and the scientific investigation room near the Defendant’s house. Moreover, the degree of combustion is weak even when considering the electric power scams of the first part of the attached Form A, which the National Institute of Scientific Investigation and Investigation Agency designated as a point of combustion, based on the following: (a) it is not clear whether the results of the identification of the National Institute of Scientific Investigation by the National Institute of Scientific Investigation in addition to the form of combustion, take into account the overall degree of combustion on the

In addition, the result of the investigation and the scientific investigation conducted by the Gyeongbuk Provincial Police Agency on the side of the Defendant’s house was unable to find out the origin of the electric power plant located on the side of the Defendant’s house to the extent possible. However, it is unclear whether the content of the investigation and the scientific investigation conducted by the Gyeongbuk Provincial Police Agency on the side of the Defendant’s house is difficult to specify the exact cause of the outbreak or may exclude the Defendant’s cause of the outbreak of the housing (the investigation and the scientific investigation conducted by the Gyeongbuk Provincial Police Agency on the side of the Defendant’s housing). However, with respect to the same phenomenon, it is difficult to discuss the specific cause of the outbreak of the electric power plant solely on the remaining remaining side of the electric power plant with strong burnings (melting by external heat), while it is against the result of the scientific investigation and investigation conducted by the Gyeongbuk Provincial Police Agency on the side of the Defendant’s house and only some remaining parts of the electric equipment. However, it is difficult to discuss the cause of the outbreak of the Defendant’s housing.

As such, there may be room to deem that the result of the identification with the State falls under cases where some contradictory or unclear opinions are presented. Therefore, the lower court did not take such measures despite having taken active measures, such as ordering the institution that implemented the foregoing identification process to supplement an appraisal report, or disclosing accurate appraisal opinions through the method of examination of a witness or inquiry of facts, etc.

2) The lower court deemed that it was difficult to view the instant fire to have occurred in the area controlled and managed by the Defendant, a lessor, based on the testimony, etc. that Nonparty 1, a witness at the time of the instant fire, went to the Defendant’s house, but failed to view it on the opposite side.

The non-party 1 made a statement that he had come to the Defendant’s wife, and the Defendant’s wife stated at the time of the police investigation that “the water supply that moves to the Defendant’s house and to the gate of the house has come to the house with the non-party 1.” According to the attached Form 3 of the lower judgment’s decision, there is room to deem that the container was located in the part of the Defendant’s house, and thus, it is difficult to view that the front of the container was located in the part of the Defendant’s house, and thus, it cannot be seen as the place where the house was closed. Therefore, the lower court should have determined the credibility of Non-party 1’s testimony by clarifying where the location of the Defendant’s wife was located in the Defendant’s house and whether the fire was seen in the Defendant’s house. Nevertheless, the lower court acknowledged the same fact without taking such measures.

3) The results of national and water identification are referred to as “the point of view should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the series of acts from fire awareness of fire witnesses to the victim, the location of the flame at the time of the fire, the size of the flames, etc.” as reference matters. However, according to the record, the following facts are revealed.

① At the time of fire, the Defendant stated that the water leakage circuit was operated due to the failure to turn on while the electric light was located inside the house, and that the water leakage circuit was turned out on the math and math, and that the fire situation was known to the Plaintiff’s husband and wife and taken shelter.

② At the time of fire, the Plaintiff’s customers, who had been in the Plaintiff’s store, were drinking alcohol at the time; however, considering the sound behind the store, the Defendant sees that the sound “influence” was “influent,” and the Defendant sees out of the store, so it was impossible to see that the extension was made in the center of the lower part of the Plaintiff’s store, and when drinking, the Plaintiff was unable to take the smell, and that there was no snick and no snick.

③ Nonparty 2, who appeared to witness a fire for the first time and reported to 119, started the fire that started behind the Plaintiff’s shop to the point of fishing, followed by a sound that started, and reported that the sound was 119, along with the extension in the inside and outside of the fishing room. The correct point of the fire revealed that: (a) the Plaintiff’s shop did not know, or the Plaintiff’s shop showed that the sound was satisfy out and was satched out and satisfy; (b) the Defendant was aware that satisfyed out and satched out of the Plaintiff’s shop, and that satisfyed the Plaintiff’s shop, and that satisfy was a part of the building behind the Plaintiff’s shop.

According to these factual relations, there is room to regard the fire of this case as being refined first in the Defendant’s house, and then having been put to the Plaintiff’s store, or having been static to the Plaintiff’s store. As such, the lower court should have clarified whether such a statement is inconsistent with the judgment on the point of fire as a result of the national and flood sense, and whether the Plaintiff’s store or the Defendant’s house had no articles to be explosiond.

4) As can be seen, the lower court should have deliberated on specific matters by taking necessary measures or by appropriately exercising the right of explanation, etc. to address the issues inconsistent with the awareness and identification results of the investigation of the Gyeongbuk Police Agency and the Scientific Investigative Team, which conflict with each other, and by appropriately exercising the right of explanation. In so doing, the lower court should have determined the credibility, etc. of appraisal results contrary to logical and empirical rules.

5) Nevertheless, without closely examining or examining the above circumstances, the lower court determined that it was insufficient to recognize that the instant fire occurred in any of the areas controlled and managed by the Defendant, a lessor, and the areas controlled and managed by the Plaintiff, a lessee. In so determining, the lower court erred by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation contained in the grounds of appeal by

2. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

[Attachment 1] List: omitted

[Attachment 2] Drawings: Omitted

[Attachment 3] Drawings: Omitted

[Attachment 4] Drawings: Omitted

Justices Kim Jong-hee (Presiding Justice)