The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the first ground of appeal, inasmuch as a lessor is obligated to maintain the conditions necessary for the use and profit-making of the leased object while the lease is in existence (Article 623 of the Civil Act). In a case where a lessor fails to properly perform such obligations due to a cause attributable to the lessor, the lessee may claim against the lessor for damages due to nonperformance.

In general, the burden of proof on the cause of non-performance is the debtor in the damages claim due to non-performance.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Meu1864, Mar. 26, 1985; 2013Da20991, Jan. 16, 2014). Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court presumed that the instant fire was caused by the electrical seal of the area back to the building A, and the foregoing electrical seal is a defect in the area controlled and managed by the Defendant, the owner of the building Adong and the lessor of the J shop, and the foregoing electrical seal is obliged to maintain the status necessary for the Plaintiff, the lessee, by repairing and removing the said defect.

Therefore, the Defendant determined that the Plaintiff was liable for damages due to the nonperformance of the repair obligation under the instant lease agreement, and rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the lessor did not breach the duty of care in relation to the repair obligation.

The above determination by the court below is purporting that the lessor, as the lessor, is liable for damages due to nonperformance, because the Defendant failed to perform his/her duty to maintain the leased object in a state necessary for use and profit-making.