1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 14, 2016, the Plaintiff, including the occurrence of the instant fire, leased a building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) between the Defendant’s wife C, as the lease deposit of KRW 18 million, monthly rent of KRW 1.8 million, and the lease period of KRW 1.8 million, from March 31, 2016 to March 30, 2018, and the Defendant operated D in the said building.

At the request of the plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff and the defendant terminated the previous lease contract, and they concluded a new lease contract from January 4, 2017 to January 2, 2019 with the period of lease fixed from January 2, 2019, and they succeeded to the previous lease deposit.

On May 29, 2017, E around 02:29, as a person who worked as an employee in D, was dismissed and actually closed due to a factory deterioration around April 2017, E was fire-prevention due to the complaint that was dismissed by the Defendant, and was sentenced to imprisonment for two years and six months due to a general building fire prevention.

As a fire prevention of this case, an accident that occurred in the building of this case was destroyed.

B. On April 2018, the Defendant decided to grant the instant exemption was declared bankrupt and became final and conclusive upon receipt of a bankruptcy and exemption decision by the District Court 2017Hadan1539, 2017Ma1539, 1539. The Defendant included KRW 160,219,530 in the creditor list of the Plaintiff’s damages liability against the Plaintiff due to the instant fire.

(hereinafter referred to as "decision on Exemption from Obligation of this case"). [The grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap's 1 through 7, Gap's 11, 12, Eul's 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The party's assertion and judgment as to it

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the fire-fighting crime E is an employee of the defendant, and was fire-fighting with the defendant's consent to occupy the factory of this case. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the fire of this case caused by the defendant's failure to perform his duty of care as a good manager in preserving the building of this case. The defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages