1. The Defendant’s KRW 3,610,00 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from April 22, 2016 to September 20, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of a wooden boat straw roof detached house located in Jeju-si (hereinafter “instant house”) and the Defendant was the lessee who leased the instant house from the Plaintiff around January 2010 and resided in the instant building until the next fire occurred.

B. On December 14, 2014, around 19:14, a fire (hereinafter “instant fire”) occurred in the instant housing, and the instant housing was discharged.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant fire occurred due to the Defendant’s neglect of management.

The plaintiff suffered property damage equivalent to KRW 28.6 million as the fire of this case, and thus, the plaintiff filed a claim for damages against the defendant.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the instant fire occurred is not attributable to the Defendant.

3. Determination

A. First, if the Defendant is liable for damages due to the instant fire, and the lessee’s obligation to return the leased object becomes impossible, if the lessee is not liable for damages due to nonperformance, then the lessee is not liable for the cause attributable to the lessee. In the event the leased building was destroyed by a fire and the cause of the fire is unknown, the lessee should prove that the lessee fulfilled the duty of due care to preserve the leased building in order to be exempted from liability. This legal doctrine equally applies to cases where the leased building seeking damages on the ground that the returned leased building was damaged by fire, although the obligation to return the leased object was not impossible at the time of the termination of the lease (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da96984, Apr. 29, 2010).