1. The Defendant’s KRW 14,474,077 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from September 19, 2014 to August 26, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. B around November 30, 2010, around 30, the Plaintiff and the insured amount of KRW 5 million, and KRW 5 million, KRW 3 million, and KRW 5 million, KRW 30 million, and KRW 5 million, KRW 30 million, and KRW 40,000, KRW 50,000, KRW 50,000, and KRW 50,000, KRW 30,000 (hereinafter “instant building”). There are two rooms in the instant building, and the Defendant (a lessee’s name is a lessee’s name) and KRW

B. On May 21, 2014, around 01:35, a fire was caused by the Defendant’s inside the main part of the instant building, and the fire was caused by the household electric appliances and tools in the market, and the fire was destroyed by the fire and the fire was destroyed by the lessee’s means of moving the fire to the next room, the ceiling, roof, and market price of the tenants, and the fire was destroyed by the fire, such as a tent, computer, television, street, and other tools.

(hereinafter “instant fire”). C.

Upon the Plaintiff’s request, the Plaintiff visited the fire site of the instant building to verify the instant fire and damages therefrom, and paid KRW 24,123,463 with the insurance proceeds (i.e., recovery cost of KRW 22,392,291) (i.e., recovery cost of KRW 1,731,172).

According to the Fire Fact-finding by the Chief of the Police Station for the Gyeongbuk-gu Police Station, it is stated that “as a result of identification, it is presumed that the fire-fighting occurred inside the house located in the Defendant’s residence, there is no trace of fire-fighting, and when considering the water resistance of household appliances, such as the fire trace of the damaged floor board and the air conditioners due to flames, and the burning expanded shape in the house, the possibility of initial combustion can be presumed in the type light installed in the ceiling, but it is impossible to readily conclude it as a cause of accurate fire due to accurate fire because it is impossible to confirm the residues such as light.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul's statement Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a) Where the lessee’s obligation to return the leased object becomes impossible, if the lessee is exempted from the liability for damages due to the impossibility of performance, such impossibility shall be attributable to the lessee’s cause for fault;