1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an insurance contract with C with the owner of the 4th floor building located in B (hereinafter “instant building”) at the time of leisure in South and North Korea (hereinafter “the instant building”). A leased the 1st floor of the instant building and operated a restaurant with D’s spouse at that place, and the Defendant is an insurer who entered into an insurance contract with D with D (Non-dividend LIWBBC).

B. On April 17, 2014, around 04:25 to 04:30, when a fire (hereinafter “instant fire”) occurred on the first floor of the instant building, and a part of the instant building was destroyed by fire, the Plaintiff paid KRW 19,938,81 in total the insurance proceeds to C on June 19, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) A, as a lessee of the first floor of the instant building, has the duty of care to keep the leased object with the care of a good manager, and as a result, the instant fire occurred due to negligence, neglecting the said duty of care, and thus, C (Lessor) is liable to compensate for the damages incurred by the instant fire, and the Defendant is liable to pay the insurance money directly to C as the insurer. (2) Since the Plaintiff acquired the right to claim compensation of the insured (C) pursuant to the subrogation provision of Article 682 of the Commercial Act by paying the insurance money to C, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages equivalent to the above insurance money.

B. 1) A lessee is obligated to perform his/her duty of care as a good manager for the preservation of a leased building; and in order to be exempted from liability for damages due to a lessee’s nonperformance of a duty of return of an object, the lessee is obligated to prove that the nonperformance was not caused by the lessee’s fault (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 69Da56, Mar. 18, 1969; 87Meu1575, Nov. 24, 1987).