[1] Where a lessee’s obligation to return an object becomes impossible, the person who bears the burden of proving the cause attributable to the lessee (=Lessee) and whether the same applies to a case where a lessee is unable to perform his/her duty due to a lessor’s

[2] Where a lessee is presumed to have destroyed an object due to a fire that occurred in the area controlled and managed by a lessor while he/she occupies and uses the leased object, whether the lessee is liable to compensate the lessee for the nonperformance, etc. of the duty to return the object (negative)

[1] A lessee is obliged to perform the duty of due care as a good manager for the preservation of a leased building; and if a lessee is liable for damages due to a lessee’s nonperformance of the duty to return an object, he/she is responsible to prove that the nonperformance does not result from a cause attributable to the lessee. However, in cases where it is found that the nonperformance of such duty was a cause of a lessor’s breach of the duty to maintain the object of lease in a state necessary for the lessee’s use and profit-making, the lessee cannot be exempted from the liability even if he/she

[2] Where a house, other building, or part of a building or building is occupied and used by a fire while it takes possession of, and uses for, the object is destroyed by a fire, if the fire is presumed to have occurred due to a defect existing in the area controlled and managed by the lessor, such as the electrical ship, which forms a part of the building structure, the lessor’s duty to repair and remove the defect belongs to the lessor’s duty to maintain the condition necessary for the use and profit-making of the leased object. Thus, the lessee cannot be held liable for damages for nonperformance, etc. of the duty to return the object due to the fire.

[1] Articles 390, 615, 618, 623, and 654 of the Civil Act; Article 288 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 390, 615, 618, 623, and 654 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 69Da56 delivered on March 18, 1969 (No. 17-1, 323), Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1575 delivered on November 24, 1987 (Gong1988, 163) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 99Da64384 delivered on July 4, 200 (Gong2000Ha, 1833), Supreme Court Decision 2005Da51013, 51020 delivered on January 13, 2006 (Gong206Sang, 235)

[Plaintiff-Appellee] Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Seoman, Attorneys Yang Gyeong-tae et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)

Defendant

Gwangju District Court Decision 2008Na7402 Decided January 9, 2009

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

A lessee has a duty of care as a good manager with respect to the preservation of a leased building, and where a lessee is liable for damages due to nonperformance of a lessee’s duty to return an object, he/she is liable to prove that nonperformance does not result from a lessee’s cause attributable to the lessee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 69Da56, Mar. 18, 1969; 87Meu1575, Nov. 24, 1987). However, even if nonperformance is proved to have a cause of breach of a lessor’s duty to maintain the object of lease in a state necessary for the lessee’s use and profit-making, the lessee cannot be exempted from its liability unless he/she asserts and proves that the lessee otherwise performs the duty to preserve the object of lease.

Therefore, if a fire is presumed to have occurred due to a defect existing in the area controlled and managed by a lessor, such as electricity exhauster, which constitutes a part of a building structure, where a lessee of a house, other building, or a part of a building or a building delivered an object from a lessor and occupied and used it, the lessee cannot be held liable for damages for nonperformance, etc. of the duty to return the object due to the fire, since the repair and removal of the defect belongs to the lessor’s duty to maintain the state necessary for the use and profit-making of the leased object. (See Supreme Court Decisions 9Da64384, Jul. 4, 200; 2005Da51013, Jan. 13, 2006, etc.).

In the instant case, the lower court determined that: (a) in light of all the circumstances, the lower court determined that: (b) the fire of the instant building was the result of a lessor’s failure to perform the duty to remove the defect of the electrical line as seen earlier to maintain the leased object in a state suitable for the use and profit-making of the leased object; (c) the fire of the instant building was the result of a lessee’s failure to return the object, as it is not legally liable for any impossibility of return, as well as any other legal liability arising therefrom, on the ground that the electric cable of the instant building was installed by the owner of the building before the lease; (d) the Defendant did not have any operation of the exhauster or other artificial manipulation on the electrical line on the electrical line on the electrical line on the fireproof section; and (d) the Defendant did not know in advance that the electric circuit of the instant building was off the leased object; and (d) the Defendant did not have any influence on the new manager of the instant building by considering that there was a difference between the lessee and the proprietor of the instant building before the occurrence of the fire.

Such determination by the court below is justifiable in accordance with the legal principles as seen earlier. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the lessee’s duty of care or by violating the rules of evidence.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)