beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 12,530,079 to the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from June 26, 2013 to March 3, 2015.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a fire insurance with respect to the development of a house in question (hereinafter referred to as a “house development”) and the Incheon Gyeyang-gu Factory B, and the Defendant is a person who leased and operated C a part of the building of the factory from the development of a house in question (hereinafter referred to as the “lease object”).
B. On March 14, 2013, around 02:30, another factory that had been located in the same Dong as the cause of the fire occurred in the leased object of this case (hereinafter “the instant fire accident”) was the occurrence of an accident.
C. On June 25, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 98,998,645 to the Korea Housing Development Corporation with the insurance proceeds from the instant fire accident, and the amount of damages incurred to the instant leased object due to the instant fire accident is KRW 12,530,079.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 24, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. Determination as to the claim for damages related to the leased object of this case 1) Where a lessee’s obligation to return the leased object of this case becomes impossible, the lessee is responsible to prove that the nonperformance was not attributable to the lessee’s cause attributable to the lessee in order to be exempted from the liability for damages caused by the nonperformance. In the case where a leased building was destroyed by a fire and the cause of the fire is unknown, if the lessee is exempted from the liability, the lessee must prove that the lessee fulfilled the duty of due care to preserve the leased building. Such legal principle equally applies to the case where the returned leased building seeking damages on the ground that the leased building was damaged by a fire, although the obligation to return the leased object at the time of termination of the lease was not impossible (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da96984, Apr. 29, 2010).