손해배상(기)
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendant jointly with the co-defendant B of the first instance trial amounting to KRW 850,000 and the Plaintiff.
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. Facts of recognition 1) The Plaintiff’s vehicle C (the vehicle type is Mazo, 911 Eurbo, hereinafter “instant vehicle”).
2) The Defendant is the owner of the building in Suwon-si, the apartment building located in Young-si, Young-si, Young-si, 98-2, and is the owner of the building in this case. The Defendant is the owner of the Guwon-si, which consists of the Peneine Podas (the underground four floors, the ground eight floors and the rooftop floor;
(2) On March 12, 2012, the Plaintiff parked the instant vehicle in the street parking lot adjacent to the instant building. On the same day, around 14:00, there was an accident where the said vehicle is destroyed (hereinafter “instant accident”) after the glass of the outer wall of the 7th floor of the said building (hereinafter “instant outer wall”).
3) From around that time to August 24, 2012, the Plaintiff received insurance proceeds of KRW 35,990,000 from Samsung Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., the insurer of the instant vehicle from KRW 35,90,00 for the repair cost of the instant vehicle. [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, and Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 10 (which includes a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply).
each entry or video, the whole purport of the pleading;
B. Article 758(1) of the Civil Act provides that the possessor of a structure shall be liable for compensation for damages in a case where damages are inflicted on another person due to defects in the installation or preservation of a structure: Provided, That in a case where the possessor does not neglect due care necessary for the prevention of damages, the owner of the structure shall be liable for compensation for damages. Thus, Article 758(1) of the Civil Act provides that
means that the structure itself does not have a normal safety, and, in determining whether the structure has such safety, the standard should be whether the installer or keeper of the structure has fulfilled his duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the risk of the structure.
Supreme Court Decision 95Da22351 delivered on February 13, 1996