1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, KRW 55,977,819 against the Plaintiff regarding Defendant B, as well as the Plaintiff from January 25, 2017.

1. As to this part of the basic facts, this court’s reasoning is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, thereby citing it as is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. Determination as to the claim for indemnity related to the factory building of this case

A. The lessee is obliged to preserve the leased object with the care of a good manager, and to return the leased object to its original condition upon termination of the lease.

(Article 374, 654, and 615 of the Civil Act). Where a lessee becomes unable to fulfill his/her duty to return an object of lease due to the extinguishment of a fire, etc., the lessee is liable to compensate for losses incurred due to the impossibility of performance of his/her duty to return the object, unless he/she proves that the impossibility of performance was due to a cause not attributable to himself/herself, and the same applies to cases where the specific cause of the fire, etc.

This legal doctrine equally applies to cases where, even though the duty to return the leased object was not in an impossible condition at the time of termination of the lease, the leased building was destroyed by a fire (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da86895, 86901, May 18, 2017). Since the instant factory building was destroyed by a fire and Defendant B did not prove that there was no cause attributable to it, Defendant B is liable for damages due to nonperformance of the duty to return the leased object, and Defendant C is liable for damages to D as the insurer.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 682 of the Commercial Act concerning subrogation by insurers, Defendant C is obligated to pay to each Plaintiff KRW 111,95,638 and delay damages pursuant to Article 682 of the Commercial Act and Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act concerning the direct claim for liability insurance.

B. As to the Defendant C’s assertion of exemption, the Defendant C is liable to compensate for a fire (including explosion) concluded by the Defendants.