2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 40% of the costs of lawsuit are borne by the Defendant, and the remainder by the Plaintiff, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

shall pay 5% per annum and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

A. The Defendant is the owner of the real estate indicated in the attached Form (hereinafter referred to as the "building of this case"), and the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract with respect to the lease deposit of KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 200,000,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 100,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1000,000,000 for management expenses, and the lease contract was renewed on the same condition as June 21, 2010.

B. On November 22, 2010 from the parking lot of the first floor among the instant buildings, a fire that could not be discovered at around 02:02 (hereinafter “the instant fire”). The Plaintiff’s mother, the mother, collected waste or recycled materials, etc. on the parking lot, which is the section for common use of the instant building, and classified them by red. The Plaintiff’s mother, the mother, was destroyed up to the second floor of the instant skin, which is the second floor attached to the abolishment, etc., and was destroyed by internal ceiling, computers, etc.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 to 4, 10, 11 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

The defect in the installation or preservation of a structure under Article 758(1) of the Civil Act refers to a state of lacking safety ordinarily required in accordance with the purpose of the structure. In determining whether such safety has been met, it shall be determined on the basis of whether the installer or custodian of the structure fulfilled his/her duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the risk of the structure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da61615, Feb. 11, 2010). Further, an accident resulting from the defect in the installation or preservation of a structure does not mean that only the defect in the installation or preservation of the structure causes damages to the victim, even if the defect in the installation or preservation of the structure occurs in concurrence with the act of another party or the act of the victim, it shall be deemed that the defect occurred due to the defect in the installation or preservation of the structure, unless the owner or possessor is liable for damages to the other person by reason of negligence (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da10819, Jun. 28, 2007).

According to the above facts, even if the cause of the fire of this case was not revealed, it shall be deemed that at the time of the fire of this case, the building of this case was neglected to abolish it on the first floor parking lot, which is the common use area, and therefore, it was in a state that does not have the stability to be equipped with social norms. The fire of this case was expanded to the second floor of the building due to such preservation defect. Thus, the defendant shall be liable for damages as the owner of the

3. Scope of and limitation on liability for damages.

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as a result of the commission of appraisal to the ○○○ Adjustment Corporation by the instant court, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that ① operating losses for the two-month period during which the Plaintiff was unable to operate his business due to the instant fire is equivalent to KRW 6,253,248, ② the amount equivalent to KRW 4,293,283, and KRW 7,955,818, and ④ the amount to be incurred as expenses for human test replacement, and ④ the amount to be incurred as expenses for disposal of residual products is equivalent to KRW 1,125,100.

B. However, although the Plaintiff asserts that 5,500,000 won was borne separately for the disposal cost of the collection of the goods, such as the time zone, but there is not sufficient evidence to acknowledge it. ② The Plaintiff concluded an Internet use contract with ○○○○○○○○ for three years and received discount benefits, but paid penalty 2,285,050 won for early termination without any agreed period due to the instant fire, and thus, the Plaintiff sought compensation for damages equivalent to the above amount. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant knew or could have known that such damage was caused to the special damage, not for ordinary damages caused by fire, but for special damages. ③ In case where the Plaintiff claimed 5 million won for damages for the reason that the damage was caused by the instant fire but generally infringed on property rights due to other person’s tort, it shall be deemed that the mental suffering was recovered from the compensation for property damage, and there is no special circumstance that the Plaintiff could not recover from the compensation for property damage, and there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant knew or could have known such circumstances.

C. Limitation on liability

As seen earlier, the cause of the instant fire is not revealed, and the point of extinguishing the fire of this case as common areas can be deemed to have the duty of care to urge the Defendant or YOOO as well as the Defendant, who is the owner of the building, and the Plaintiff, as well as the lessee, to remove the fire that may cause the possibility of spreading the result of burning, etc. in the event of a fire, and thus, it is reasonable to limit the Defendant’s liability to 60% in light of all circumstances revealed during the pleading process.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages amounting to KRW 11,76, 469 [=19, 627, 449 + KRW 4,253, 248 + KRW 4,293 + KRW 7,95, KRW 818 + KRW 1,125, and KRW 100 + KRW 6,00)] to the Plaintiff as damages.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 11, 776, 469 won as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from November 1, 201, which is the date of the instant judgment, to December 2, 2011, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is the date of the instant fire occurrence to the plaintiff, from November 1, 2010, which is the date of the instant judgment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is with merit within the scope of the above recognition, and is so decided as per Disposition.