Jinsung Integrated Pipelines Co., Ltd. (Law Firm C&K, Attorneys Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm Ea, Attorneys Song-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

December 12, 2018

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant will pay to the plaintiff 163,220,580 won as damages due to non-performance of repair obligation under a lease agreement or the liability of the owner or possessor of a structure with 15% interest per annum from the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant is the owner of the two-story A, a factory building A, 540.11 square meters and 164.63 square meters (hereinafter “instant building”) on the two-story B, Ansan-si ( Address omitted), a factory site for the land of 1074.2 square meters and its ground steel frame, sand site location plate, and the two-story B, respectively.

B. On March 1, 2007, the Plaintiff leased the lease deposit of KRW 10,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,100,000, and from March 1, 2007 to February 28, 2008, the Plaintiff leased the said store from the Defendant for business activities such as manufacturing and selling water tools and valves at the same time, and the said lease contract was implicitly renewed on the expiration date.

C. On February 15, 2013, at around 18:25, a fire occurred in the rear part of the instant building A (hereinafter “instant fire”). As a result, the instant store’s facilities, and its interior house equipment, fixtures, and inventory assets were relocated.

(d) The circumstantial facts concerning fire causes;

1) The fire of this case led to the collapse of the parts after the store of this case among the Adong buildings, while the building B and the container of this case were relatively inflammable compared to the building A, and the burning of the building B and the container of this case are in a situation where the degree of burning is not serious compared to the building A and the burning of the container of this case is more severe than the inside.

2) The main unit in charge of electricity of the entire building A is installed inside the ○○○○○○, and the main unit from the main unit to the instant store, etc. was installed through the cable duct installed according to the middle degree of the building A.

3) There is no scams in the vicinity of the instant fire site, and many people who were inside the Adong store at the time of the instant fire occurrence were made a statement with the same agreement that they could not feel flames, smokes, smells, etc. before the fire alarm is sounding. They all were “ON” and the inspection shuttles and inspection shuts installed in the entire subdivision of the Adong store were “ON”, and there was no electrical characteristics that could be related to scams in each of the above stores.

4) The witness witness of the initial outbreak of the fire of this case stated the second floor wall between the ○○○○○ store and the △△△△△ store after the building A at the same time. The point at which the fire of this case was emitted is identical to the route where the electrical seal line passed by each store in the overall part of the body.

5) From around 2012, from around 2012, there frequently occurred many cases where electricity occurs in the entire building due to abnormal malfunctions inside the ○○○○○○○, and there occurred a direct replacement of the electric breaker, and the malfunctions of the fire alarms frequently occurred. In addition, around 4:0 p.m. on the date of the instant fire, the instant fire occurred, the △△△△ branch, which was installed at the ○○○○○○○ store, called the ○○○○ store, and the △△ branch of the △△ branch, called the ○○○○○ store, and the △△ branch of △△△ branch, called the ○○○ branch and cut off, but thereafter two to three times.

6) On March 26, 2013, the National Science Investigation and Research Institute presented the opinion that, in full view of the aforementioned various circumstances, the accurate cause of the outbreak and the point of the outbreak cannot be pointed out specifically, but it cannot exclude the possibility that electrical heat generated from electric wires generated from the main body inside the ○○○○○○○○○ branch of the Defendant’s operation would have served as a source of the outbreak of the electric wires, among the wire-types charged with the main body of each store from △△△ to △△△△△, the main body of the main body of the Defendant’s operation.

E. The Defendant’s amount of damages caused by the instant fire was calculated as KRW 163,232,580, including the total amount of KRW 10,377,064, inventory assets of KRW 150,483,779, and KRW 2,371,737, etc.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including the branch number if there is a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the whole purport of pleading (the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to reverse the above fact of recognition).

2. Determination as to the claim for damages due to the Defendant’s nonperformance of repair obligation under a lease agreement

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

According to the above facts, the fire of this case is determined to have occurred due to the electrical seal system after the building A, which forms a part of the building A, and the above electrical seal system problems exist in the area controlled and managed by the defendant, who is the owner of the building A, and the lessor of the store of this case, and the defendant bears the duty to maintain the status necessary for the plaintiff to use and profit from the store of this case, which is the object of lease by repairing and removing the above defects. Since the fire of this case occurred in violation of this provision, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the above 163,232,580 won and damages for delay due to the non-performance of the repair obligation under the lease contract.

B. Judgment on the defendant's defense, etc.

1) The Defendant defense that the Plaintiff’s damage claim was extinguished by the statute of limitations. The Plaintiff’s damage claim was concluded between the Defendant and the Plaintiff, a merchant, for business at the instant store. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s damage claim was established based on the Defendant’s nonperformance of the repair obligation under the above lease agreement, which is a commercial activity. Meanwhile, the period of extinctive prescription for the Plaintiff’s damage claim due to nonperformance of obligation is five years. Meanwhile, regardless of whether the obligee was aware of the nonperformance of obligation, the obligee’s damage claim should begin to run from the nonperformance of obligation. It is reasonable to deem that the Defendant’s failure to perform the repair obligation under the lease agreement was up to February 15, 2013. Since it is apparent that the Plaintiff’s damage claim was filed on June 7, 2018, which was five years after the lawsuit was filed, the Plaintiff’s damage claim was already extinguished by the statute of limitations prior to the filing of the lawsuit in this case. The Defendant’s defense was reasonable.

2) On this issue, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription is against the principle of good faith in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s contribution was considerably difficult for the Plaintiff to exercise its rights as the Plaintiff, such as cleaning the inside of the Defendant’s store, replacing the destroyed cable, etc.; (b) the Nonparty’s representative director filed a lawsuit against the Defendant as an individual qualification; and (c) other persons who filed the lawsuit are compensated for damages. According to each description of the evidence No. 7, the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription is against the principle of good faith in light of the following: (a) the Defendant clean up the office floor of the part of the instant ○○○○○○○ store used by the Defendant from the instant building immediately after the instant fire; and (b) it is difficult to deem that the cause of the instant fire was revealed as soon as possible or that the Plaintiff’s exercise of rights was considerably difficult due to such circumstance; and (c) the Plaintiff’s assertion alone is insufficient to deem the Defendant

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for this part is without merit.

3. Determination as to the claim for damages against the owner of a structure

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

As seen earlier, it is determined that the instant fire was caused by the electrical seal line on the back of the building A, which forms a part of the building A, and the foregoing electrical seal line problem is located in the area controlled and managed by the Defendant, the owner of the building A, and thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is also the owner of the building A, and is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the damages for the damage incurred by the preservation defect and the damages for delay.

B. Judgment on the defendant's defense, etc.

In light of the above circumstances, the Defendant’s defense that the statute of limitations expired. On March 26, 2013 after the occurrence of the instant fire, the Defendant presented his opinion that the first instance court’s judgment, which acknowledged the Defendant’s liability for damages regarding the instant fire, was rendered on December 11, 2014 (U.S. 2014No. 1435) by comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances: (a) the National Scientific Investigation and Research Institute established the overall subdivision of the main section inside the ○○○○○○○○○○○○, which was handed down by each shop; and (b) the possibility that electrical heat generated from the electric wires that run from the △△△△△△ to △△△△△△△△, among the face-in-the-face, could not be ruled out as the source of emitting; and (c) the Plaintiff’s defense against the instant fire that had already been filed by the Defendant on December 11, 2014 before the lapse of the statute of limitations for damages from the Plaintiff’s possession of the instant structure.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for this part is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims of this case are dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-hoon