1. The Defendant’s KRW 87,150,832 and the Plaintiff’s portion

(a) From December 18, 2015, 24,531,467 won, for KRW 30,000,000.

Facts of recognition

On September 1, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on a deposit of KRW 70 million, monthly rent of KRW 7 million (excluding value-added tax), and KRW 7 million (excluding value-added tax) with respect to the 1483.5m square meters of building 1483.5m (hereinafter “instant warehouse”).

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). On October 1, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract on the storage and distribution agency for the goods (hereinafter “the instant transaction parties”) with the transaction parties upon delivery of the instant warehouse, and kept the goods delivered by the transaction parties in the instant warehouse, and was engaged in the business of packing and delivering the goods requested to deliver from the transaction parties upon receipt of a request from the transaction parties.

On December 17, 2015, at around 09:40, a fire occurred in the warehouse of this case, and the warehouse of this case was removed, and the goods owned by the business partners of this case (hereinafter “the goods of this case”) that the Plaintiff kept inside of the warehouse was destroyed (hereinafter “the fire of this case”), and the fire of this case was extinguishing around 10:49 on the same day.

The transaction parties of this case filed a lawsuit claiming damages with the Defendant, the possessor of the warehouse of this case, as the owner of the warehouse of this case, on the grounds that the fire of this case occurred due to the defect in the installation and preservation of the warehouse of this case and the fire of this case was destroyed.

(2) The court of first instance of the instant lawsuit accepted all or part of the main claim against the Defendant and dismissed the conjunctive claim against the Plaintiff (Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2015Da246388, Seoul Central District Court 2016Gahap50606), and the aforementioned 2016Gahap50606, the appellate court reversed part of the part against the Defendant, and accepted part of the main claim against the Defendant, and accepted the conjunctive claim against the Plaintiff.