The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that the lessee's liability for damages was denied on the ground that the lessee's failure to perform his duty of due care as a good manager for the preservation of the leased object was the result of the lessee's failure to perform part of the obligation to return the leased object

The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that the lessee's liability for damages was denied on the ground that the lessee's failure to perform his/her duty of due care as a lessor was the result of the lessee's failure to perform his/her duty of due care as a result of the lessee's failure to perform his/her duty of care for the preservation of the leased object, on the ground that the lessee's liability for returning the leased object was partially destroyed due to a fire that was destroyed by an electrical power plant, but the electrical power boat, which was an electrical power plant, was part of the structure of the building

Articles 390, 618, and 623 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Da38182 Decided August 24, 1982 (Gong1982, 875) Supreme Court Decision 87Da1575 Decided November 24, 1987 (Gong1988, 163), Supreme Court Decision 93Da2227 Decided February 8, 1994 (Gong194, 1002), Supreme Court Decision 94Da38182 Decided October 14, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 2988), Supreme Court Decision 9Da36273 Decided September 21, 1999 (Gong199Ha, 2209)

National Agricultural Cooperative Federation (Attorney Kim Jong-hee, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant

Daegu High Court Decision 98Na8159 delivered on October 15, 1999

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The court below acknowledged the following facts: (a) while the Defendant leased and used the instant building, that part of the instant building was destroyed by fire; (b) the instant building was a wooden building; (c) there was no other facility or object that could have been caused by the outbreak of the instant fire at the time of the occurrence of the fire; and (d) there was no other facility or object that could have been caused by the outbreak of the instant fire at the vicinity of the extinguishment point; and (b) the Plaintiff’s employees or racing fire station investigating the cause of the instant fire; and (c) the fact that the instant fire was presumed to have been caused by the outbreak of the sprink as it was caused by the combination of plastic cables in the front ceiling, the instant fire was confirmed to have been caused by the above fact-finding, part of the plastic plastic wire, and there was no violation of the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds for appeal. In light of the records, the court below's aforementioned measures are justified and there was no violation of the rules of evidence.

The ground of appeal on this point is without merit, since it is based on facts different from the above recognition.

2. The court below acknowledged that the plastic cable on the front part of the wall of this case, which caused the fire of this case, was part of the distribution line connected to the inner inside of the wall of this case, in which the condition cannot be confirmed or checked externally. The defendant leased and used the above building, and there was no problem in the electrical distribution line of the building until the fire occurred. Further, the defendant did not perform any repair work on the wall of this case as well as on the part of the electrical distribution line of the building of this case. The court below found that the wall of the building of this case and the electrical distribution line passing through the inside of the ceiling of the building of this case were part of the building structure, and there was any defect, and barring special circumstances such as the circumstance that the lessee knew or could have known the defect in advance, it is hard to view that the lessee was liable to maintain the leased object as a manager of the leased object of this case even if the defendant knew or could not have known the leased object of this case as a result of the above finding that the lessee did not have any duty to protect the object of this case.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and they are not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the causes attributable to failure to perform obligations or the duty of due care of a good manager, or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

The argument in the grounds of appeal on this point is not acceptable.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)