1. The Defendant’s KRW 91,779,709 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from May 29, 2013 to June 25, 2013.

1. The fact of recognition ① The Plaintiff is an insurer who concluded a fire insurance contract with respect to the building of the light-weight steel framed, steel-frame, steel-frame, roof, single-story (hereinafter “instant building”).

② While the Defendant leased and occupied and used the instant building from A, around March 13, 2013, a fire occurred in the instant building, and a part of the instant building was destroyed.

③ On May 28, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 91,779,709, total amount of damages incurred from the instant building due to the said fire accident, as fire insurance money.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 8, purport of whole pleadings

2. Where a lessee’s obligation to return an object of lease becomes impossible to discharge his/her liability for damages due to nonperformance, the lessee is responsible to prove that nonperformance is not due to the lessee’s cause attributable to the lessee. In cases where a leased building was destroyed by a fire and the cause of the fire is unknown, in order for the lessee to discharge his/her liability, the lessee must prove that the lessee fulfilled his/her duty of care to preserve the leased building. This legal doctrine equally applies to cases where the returned leased building seeking compensation for damages on the ground that the leased building was damaged by fire, even though the obligation to return the object of lease at the time of termination of the lease was not impossible (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da96984, Apr. 29, 2010), barring any special circumstance, the Defendant, the lessee of the building of this case, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages arising from nonperformance of the duty to return the building of this case, and the Plaintiff acquired the right to claim damages from the Plaintiff after paying insurance proceeds to the Plaintiff.