beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.08.27 2017나60491

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal and its extended and added claims are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 15, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the Plaintiff’s medical care Corporation located in Gwangju City. The Defendant, from July 2, 2012 to August 16, 2012, performed the Plaintiff’s hospital care construction. During the construction process, the Plaintiff established a stabilization machine such as halog, etc. (hereinafter “instant stabilization machine”).

B. On January 12, 2016, around 09:44, at the Plaintiff’s hospital, the Plaintiff’s hospital destroyed a fire, and the Plaintiff’s hospital destroyed the ceiling, and caused damage, such as cooling and heating apparatus, and medical appliances.

(hereinafter “instant fire”). C.

The written opinion on the analysis (appraisal) of evidence on the fire site prepared by the Gyeonggi-do Fire-Fighting School on the instant fire states as follows: “The comprehensive analysis results show that “connmark, installed in the circuit board of the stable engine, has been melted with the diversity of high heat as a result of the electrical abnormal phenomenon (such as excessive load). Therefore, if there is no other heat source at the point of combustion, the said stability is deemed likely to have been caused by the fire, unless there is another heat source at the point of combustion.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, 8, 16 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) or images, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is a stabilization machine exclusively for halogom electrics, etc., and the Defendant used the instant ED electrics, etc. during the instant stabilization machine despite having been written in the instant stabilization machine, and thereby, the instant fire occurred. Since the Defendant is liable for damages due to nonperformance or tort, the Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff for damages due to the damages incurred during the period of suspension of business due to the instant fire, and is damaged by the damage equivalent to the lost income during the period of suspension of business.