1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 41,00,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) for KRW 41,00,000 and for this, from May 6, 2015 to April 27, 2018.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 16, 2014, the Defendant leased the instant vinyl C’s ground (hereinafter “instant vinyl”) from the Plaintiff as of September 16, 2014 by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 15,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1400,000, and the lease period of KRW 16,000, September 16, 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant lease agreement”). B.

On May 5, 2015, around 1:38, another vinyl house owned by the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff adjacent to the instant vinyl house was laid down.

(hereinafter “instant fire”. The instant vinyl, which was destroyed by the instant fire, refers to the instant vinyl, and the Plaintiff’s adjacent vinyl, which is collectively referred to as the “instant vinyl, etc.”). Moreover, the instant vinyl, etc. was partly destroyed by the container of neighboring land, the gas station appurtenant warehouse, etc. due to the expansion of flames caused by the instant fire.

C. Accordingly, E and F (hereinafter “Co. D, etc.”) who operated the drum, gas station, etc. on the land adjacent to D and D, which was the lessee of the Plaintiff’s vinyl, filed a claim for damages under the general joint tort liability (Article 750 and 760 of the Civil Act) against the Plaintiff and the Defendant first, and the Plaintiff’s liability for the owner of the structure (Article 758(1) of the Civil Act).

[Seoul Southern District Court 2015Gahap110912 (main lawsuit), 2017Gahap1005 (Counterclaim)] On July 6, 2017, the first instance court dismissed the main claim and rendered a judgment ordering the plaintiff to compensate for damages. D.

However, in the appellate trial on February 21, 2018, the court held that ① the first point of fire extinguishment is inside the instant vinyl for the following reasons, and ② the part against the Plaintiff, which accepted the conjunctive claim in the first instance judgment, deeming that the Defendant, who was the occupant of the instant vinyl, failed to perform his duty of care to prevent the occurrence of the instant fire, was revoked.