beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 13,980,00 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from April 30, 2014 to December 21, 2017.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On December 14, 2013, the Defendant leased the whole second floor of the building of the second floor of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the second floor of the building of the building of the 2nd floor of the Ycheon-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “instant store”) owned by B from December 14, 2013, by setting the deposit amount of KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 1.2 million, and the lease period from January 6, 2014 to January 6, 2016
B. The Defendant kept automobile parts in the bend column of the instant store while engaging in the wholesale and retail business of automobile parts at the instant store.
C. The Plaintiff entered into a property comprehensive insurance contract with D, the husband of the instant second floor including the instant store, with respect to the insurance amount of KRW 240,00,000 (fire security) and the insurance period from December 28, 2012 to December 28, 202.
However, the fire occurred in the bend part of the store of this case and the goods stored inside the store of this case were destroyed by fire.
(hereinafter “instant fire”). On April 29, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 23,300,000 to B with the insurance money related to the damage (i.e., recovery and repair expenses, and removal of remainder) incurred to the instant store due to the instant fire, according to the said insurance contract.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant, the lessee of the instant store, did not perform the duty to return the instant store and thereby inflicted damage on B. As such, the Defendant should pay KRW 23,300,000 insurance money to the Plaintiff, who exercises the insurer’s subrogation right under Article 682 of the Commercial Act, and pay the Plaintiff the said KRW 23,30,000 and the damages for delay thereof. (2) The Defendant’s assertion was not leased by the Defendant that the instant fire occurred, but the Defendant fulfilled the duty of due care to preserve the instant store, and thus, is not liable to compensate for the instant fire.
B. The leased object of the liability for damages is extinguished due to fire, etc.