1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

1. The reasoning for this part of the basic facts is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the dismissal of paragraphs 1-C and 5 of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance as follows. Thus, this part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Attachment]

C. On December 22, 2013, 00:23, five adjacent stores, including the instant store, were destroyed by a fire (hereinafter “instant fire”).

E. The amount of damages caused by the instant fire is as follows. On March 21, 2014, the Plaintiff paid to the Corporation KRW 69,029,376 as insurance proceeds (i.e., insurance proceeds of KRW 19,832,140 as to the part outside of the instant store).

(2) Damages for the part of the store in this case: 28,831,727 won

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant is liable for damages to the Corporation as follows. Thus, the plaintiff is liable to pay the insurance money to the Corporation in accordance with the subrogation of the insurer under Article 682 of the Commercial Act.

Despite the prohibition of sub-lease agreement, the Defendant sub-leaseed the pre-paid part of the instant case to Co-Defendant D without permission of the Corporation, and neglected to use D’s heat, resulting in the instant fire.

This constitutes grounds for the occurrence of liability for damages caused by defects in the installation and preservation of the defendant and D's general illegal acts or the structures under their management, and thus the defendant is liable for damages as joint illegal acts with D along with D.

B. As seen earlier prior to the Defendant’s default liability, leaving the Defendant’s unauthorized use of the heat exhauster and D without permission constitutes a lessee’s breach of the lessee’s duty of care regarding the preservation and management of the instant store.

Therefore, the defendant is liable for the non-performance of obligation under the lease contract as to the fire of this case caused by it.

3. Determination

A. The fact that constitutes one tort liability regarding tort liability constitutes one tort liability.