1. The Defendant’s KRW 26,769,544 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from January 9, 2015 to March 14, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff, a corporation that runs an insurance business, concluded a housing fire insurance contract (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with C regarding the instant housing between C and C, the owner of the instant house located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, as the corporation that runs the instant insurance business, by setting the insurance period from December 7, 2013 to December 7, 2014 (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

B. On December 21, 2013, the Defendant leased 204 units among the five households with the second five floors of the instant housing (hereinafter “instant leased”) from C, and had resided in the leased part from that time.

C. On November 30, 2014, around 08:20, a fire (hereinafter “instant fire”) occurred in the leased premises of this case, and the leased premises of this case were destroyed by damage, such as the transfer of the leased premises.

After evaluating damage caused by the instant fire, the Plaintiff paid KRW 26,769,544, insurance money to C on January 8, 2015 according to the instant insurance contract.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 9 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In light of the determination, where the lessee’s obligation to return the leased object became impossible, the lessee is responsible to prove that the nonperformance was not due to the lessee’s cause attributable to the lessee. In the case where the leased building was destroyed by a fire, if the cause of the fire is unknown, the lessee must prove that the lessee fulfilled his duty of due care to preserve the leased building (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da36273, Sept. 21, 199). Since there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant, who leased the leased object from C, performed his duty of due care as a good manager with respect to the preservation of the leased object, the Defendant is liable due to the occurrence of the fire on the leased object.