1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's claim expanded in the trial are all dismissed.

2. Demanding and expanding the costs of appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance for the acceptance of the judgment is as follows. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) it used the phrase “within the above-mentioned scope” under Section 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following determination as to the Plaintiff’s additional assertion in the court of first instance. Therefore, it is acceptable as it is

2. Parts to be determined additionally

A. The Defendant was not able to repair a consul, sound apparatus, etc. inside the film board located on the third through seventh floor of the instant building due to the Plaintiff’s primary fire. However, the Defendant breached the duty to maintain the leased object in a state suitable for the use and profit-making so that the Plaintiff, a lessee, would normally operate the film board. As such, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for two consular repair costs for the damages incurred to the Plaintiff due to the first and second fire, including the expenses for cleaning the film board, the expenses for cleaning the film board, the expenses for cleaning the business, the compensation for damages incurred to the Plaintiff, and the damages for delay.

B. Determination on the establishment of liability for damages under related legal doctrine is based on the duty 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). Therefore, in a case where the leased object is destroyed or damaged, if it is deemed that the lessee would be obstructed from using and profit-making in accordance with the purpose determined by the contract unless it is repaired, the lessor is obliged to bear the duty of repairing the leased object (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da96984, Apr. 29, 2010). Such duty of repairing the leased object is to the extent necessary for the lessee to use and profit-making of the leased object, barring any special circumstance.