beta
Text
1. Defendant A Co., Ltd. shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 144,427,086 and its amount from August 22, 2014 to November 19 of the same year.
Reasons
1. In fact, each of the following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, either as a matter of dispute between the parties, or as a whole, as stated in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 9 (including branch numbers).
C On October 30, 201, Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”) determined and leased the pertinent building D’s 842 square meters (hereinafter “instant building”) owned by Defendant A Co., Ltd. as of October 30, 201 by monthly rent of KRW 3,60,000 (excluding value-added tax) and the lease period from November 19, 201 to November 30, 2013.
Even after the expiration of the above lease term, C and the defendant company maintained the lease relationship.
B. B. On August 12, 2013, C entered into an insurance contract with the Plaintiff for the Han Enterprise Love Insurance Co., Ltd with the content of compensating for the damage if a fire was inflicted on the instant building due to the occurrence of the fire, setting the insurance period from September 15, 2013 to September 16:00 to September 15, 2014.
C. On June 10, 2014, around 21:17, the instant building was destroyed by a fire that occurred from the instant building, and C suffered damage equivalent to KRW 150,014,559.
After internal review, the Plaintiff paid KRW 144,427,086 as insurance money to C on August 22, 2014.
2. Determination
(a) Where a lessee’s liability for the return of leased object becomes impossible in the relevant precedents, if the lessee is exempted from liability for damages due to nonperformance, the burden of proving that the nonperformance was not due to the lessee’s cause attributable to the lessee, and where the leased building was destroyed by fire and the cause of the fire is unknown, if the lessee is exempted from liability, the burden of proving that the lessee fulfilled his duty of care as a good manager for the preservation of the leased building should be proven;
B. (See Supreme Court Decision 2000Da57351 delivered on January 19, 2001).
According to the facts stated in Paragraph 1 of the part of the claim against the defendant company, the defendant company is obligated to preserve the leased building unless there are special circumstances.