1. On September 1, 2014, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) with respect to a fire accident that occurred from “D” located in Kim Jong-si on September 1, 2014.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 30, 2013, the Defendant owned a building and its appurtenant building (hereinafter “instant building and its appurtenant building”). However, on October 30, 2013, the Defendant: (a) determined the lease deposit amount as KRW 5 million with respect to the part of the instant appurtenant building (hereinafter “instant building”) with respect to KRW 340 square meters; hereinafter “instant store”); and (b) leased the instant building and its appurtenant building to the Plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff operated a restaurant with the trade name “D” at the instant store.

C. On September 1, 2014, at around 08:00, the Plaintiff’s wife metd the instant store by setting slicking the slick, which was water on the instant store’s gas bags, and the instant building and its affiliated building, which slicked for a slick cause (hereinafter “instant fire”). D. The instant fire, which slicked the instant building and its affiliated building, was caused by a fire.

On September 2, 2014, the Plaintiff issued a letter to the Defendant stating that “The instant fire is caused by his own negligence and the building shall be restored to its original state as the Plaintiff received insurance money from the fire.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 1 through 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Determination

A. (1) Where a lessee’s obligation to return an object of lease becomes impossible due to a lessee’s nonperformance, the lessee is responsible to prove that the nonperformance was not attributable to the lessee’s cause attributable to the lessee. In cases where the leased building was destroyed by a fire and the cause of the fire is unknown, if the lessee is exempted from liability, the lessee must prove that he/she fulfilled his/her duty of due care to preserve the leased building.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da57351, Jan. 19, 2001). Such a legal doctrine applies to a leased building that was returned, even though it was impossible to return the leased object at the time of termination of the lease.