손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claim against the defendant expanded by this court are all dismissed.
2...
1. Basic facts
A. On October 2, 2014, the Plaintiff leased the second floor among the above buildings owned by the Defendant, which was set at KRW 5,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 300,000, and the term of lease from October 13, 2014 to twenty-four months (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) (hereinafter “instant lease contract”), and had resided on the second floor of the instant building from around that time.
The instant lease contract was implicitly renewed at the end of the business.
B. On February 12, 2018, around 10:30, a fire (hereinafter “instant fire”) occurred in the warehouse attached to the instant building (hereinafter “instant warehouse”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, 15, 16, 17, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion
A. The fire of this case occurred in the warehouse that the Defendant newly constructed and used on the side of the building of this case without permission, and the damage amounting to KRW 9,628,560 and damages for delay due to the defect in the installation or management of the Defendant’s structure (ware) is liable to the Plaintiff.
Specific details of damage are as follows:
① As a result, in order to extinguish the instant fire, the fire-fighting vehicle spreads water, thereby causing damage to the Plaintiff’s household appliances, household appliances, etc. that make it unusable in water. <2,230,00 won 6,230,000 won of the value of the goods. ② The Plaintiff was in the course of evacuation through the side roof at the time of the instant fire and received treatment for the injury of the part of the Plaintiff’s restaurant, such as drums and tensions, on the wind that the slate was destroyed and damaged at the time of the instant fire. ③ Medical expenses of KRW 181,560 won. ③ The Plaintiff did not carry out diving without any exemption from mental damage due to the Trine caused by the instant fire. As such, the Plaintiff’s losses to the business of the restaurant operated by the Plaintiff due to the Plaintiff’s injury treatment and removal.