1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is that the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the corresponding part of the reasoning for the judgment, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant A

A. The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows, except for adding the following judgments to the pertinent part, and therefore, this Court’s reasoning is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance. Thus, this Court’s explanation is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

B. According to the principle of fair apportionment of damages under the good faith, Defendant A’s liability should be limited to the extent of 50% in light of the following: (a) the cause of the instant fire is unclear; and (b) Defendant A is merely a lessee under a lease agreement that did not actually live in the studio of the instant case.

In cases where a debtor is liable for damages due to a creditor's non-performance of obligation, if there is any negligence on the part of the creditor or if it is necessary to ensure a fair sharing of damages (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da377721, May 15, 2008). Whether to consider the creditor's negligence in determining the scope of damages due to a non-performance of obligation to a certain extent according to the principle of good faith and the concept of fairness should be determined reasonably to share the damages fairly in consideration of various circumstances, such as the degree of the creditor's intent or negligence on the part of the creditor and the debtor, the content of the non-performance of obligation which is the cause of liability, and the occurrence and expansion of damages, etc.,

(See Supreme Court Decision 90Da6491 delivered on January 25, 1991, and Supreme Court Decision 98Da35389 delivered on June 13, 200). In light of the above circumstances asserted by the Defendant, even if considering the above circumstances, the Defendant’s liability should be limited according to the good faith principle and the concept of fairness.