1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is as follows: “The insurance period shall be from January 5, 2015 to January 5, 2018; and the insurance amount shall be KRW 100 million from January 5, 2015 to January 5, 2018; “The insurance period shall be from January 5, 2015 to January 5, 2018; and the insurance amount shall be KRW 100 million”; “The second part of the first part shall be from July 26, 2013 to July 26, 2018; “The insurance period shall be from July 26, 2013 to July 26, 2018;” “The insurance period shall be from July 26, 2013 to 1304, which covers losses caused by fire” as it is the same as “the comprehensive insurance period of KRW 404,000,00,000,000.”

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In cases where a lessee’s obligation to return a leased object becomes impossible, the lessee is responsible to prove that the nonperformance was not due to the lessee’s cause attributable to the lessee. In cases where a leased building was destroyed by a fire and the cause of the fire is unknown, if the lessee is exempted from liability, then the lessee must prove that the lessee fulfilled his/her duty of care to preserve the leased building (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da57351, Jan. 19, 2001). This legal doctrine equally applies to cases where the lessee seeks compensation for damages on the ground that the returned building was destroyed by a fire, even though the contractual obligation to return the leased object was not impossible at the time of the termination of the lease (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da96984, Apr. 29, 2010). In addition, the lessee and the owner of the building purchased the leased building for insurance purposes.