구상금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, is that the part concerning the occurrence of liability for damages under Section 4-2 of Section 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance, is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where the part concerning the occurrence of liability for damages is
(As stated in detail in the judgment of the court of first instance, it is reasonable to see that the Defendant is a co-defendant A and the store of this case). 2. The lessee is obligated to preserve the leased object with the care of a good manager until the lessee issues an order to specify the leased object. If the leased object is destroyed or damaged due to the breach of such duty of care, the lessee is liable to compensate for the damages, and if the leased object is destroyed or damaged, the lessee is liable to compensate for the damages. If the leased object is destroyed or damaged, the lessee must prove that the lessee has fulfilled his/her duty
(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da22605, 22612 delivered on October 25, 191, etc.). In addition, in cases where a lessee’s obligation to return an object of lease becomes impossible, the lessee is responsible for proving that the nonperformance was not attributable to the lessee’s cause attributable to the lessee, if the lessee is exempted from liability for damages due to nonperformance. In cases where the leased building was destroyed by a fire and the cause of the fire is unknown, if the lessee is exempted from liability, the lessee must prove that he/she fulfilled his/her duty of due care as to the preservation of the leased building.
(See Supreme Court Decisions 9Da36273 delivered on September 21, 199; 2000Da57351 delivered on January 19, 2001, etc.). However, as seen earlier, the fire occurred at the store of this case, which is a leased object, and there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant fulfilled the fiduciary duty in relation to the preservation of the store of this case. Thus, when the Defendant is based on the respective statements stated in the evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 7, the direct cause of the fire of this case.