1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. From around 10 to 13 years ago, the Plaintiff leased one column (20 square meters under the lease contract; hereinafter “instant leased section”) among the buildings located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan City D 84.30 square meters (hereinafter “instant building”); the instant building is underdeveloped in the C market with the approval of use on May 10, 1966; and there are five stores located in the building, other than the Defendant, in addition to the Defendant) to the Defendant. The Plaintiff drafted a lease contract around January 25, 2017 and set the lease contract amount of KRW 4 years and the lease deposit amount of KRW 2.7 million.

The Defendant was engaged in the counter-production and sales business in the above leased portion with the trade name of “E”.

B. On May 23, 2017, at around 07:33, a fire occurred in the vicinity of the outer wall surface of the leased premises of the instant case possessed by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant fire”).

C. Due to the instant fire, the instant building owned by the Plaintiff was destroyed by the loss, such as the area of 25 square meters was destroyed by the area of 25 square meters, and further, the damage was incurred, including the real estate owned by another victim, and the area of 57 square meters was destroyed by the said area.

The building of this case is located in a market where small-scale stores with a 50 year or more are concentrated, and the inside of the building was used by dividing the ceiling and walls with brick walls, sand site panels, and steel plates, and the roof was covered by iron and sand site panels, etc. in the form of Chinese style.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5 and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendant was unable to fulfill his duty of care as the lessee of the leased portion, and the instant fire occurred. Therefore, the Defendant is liable for damages due to nonperformance of contractual obligations.