beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff, an insurance company, concluded a fire insurance contract (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with C, setting the insurance period from March 13, 2013 to March 13, 2018, with respect to the instant building between C and C, the owner of the instant building located in Sungsung City (hereinafter “instant building”).
B. On May 7, 2014, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with C to lease 302 of the instant building (hereinafter “instant leased object”) from May 7, 2014 to July 5, 2014.
C. However, around October 13, 2014, a fire (hereinafter “instant fire”) occurred in the leased object of this case, which destroyed the leased object of this case and the corridor of the instant building, etc., or caused an accident that destroyed the leased object of this case.
The Plaintiff assessed KRW 11,106,533 of the instant building, which is the subject matter of insurance, due to the instant fire, and paid KRW 11,106,533 of the insurance proceeds to C on January 13, 2015 according to the instant insurance contract.
[Ground for recognition] Each entry or video of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleading
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. Where a lessee’s obligation to return an object of lease has become impossible, if the lessee is liable for damages due to nonperformance, he/she shall be responsible to prove that the nonperformance was not due to the lessee’s cause attributable to the lessee. In cases where the leased building was destroyed by fire and the cause of the fire is unknown, if the lessee is relieved of such liability, the lessee shall prove that the lessee fulfilled his/her duty of care to preserve the leased building. This legal doctrine also applies to cases where the lessee seeks compensation for damages on the ground that the returned building was destroyed by fire, although the obligation to return the leased object was not impossible at the time of termination of the lease.