beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.07.07 2014가단86376

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The Defendants jointly and severally against the Plaintiff A, KRW 40,562,395, and KRW 500,000 and each of the said money.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff A is the owner of 202 U.S. F building operation 202 (hereinafter “instant building”); Plaintiff B is her husband, Plaintiff C is her husband, and Plaintiff C is her husband.

The Plaintiffs live together in the instant building.

Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant D”) is a company engaged in packaging business, etc., and Defendant E is a team leader who exercises overall control over the site of Defendant D’s construction work.

B. On August 26, 2014, Defendant E, along with G, who is a field worker belonging to Defendant D, parked one ton truck on the first floor parking lot of the F building in order to perform the drainage work of sewage pipes in the vicinity of the F building.

However, in the case of the above truck, inflammable substances such as oxygen, LPG gas, gasoline, etc. were loaded together, but there was no fire extinguisher.

Defendant E et al., while working in these circumstances, led to a power generation phase, sent to the adjacent gasoline and LPG gas supply in the vicinity of the power generator. As a result, the fire caused to the above F building due to explosion.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant fire”). C.

Defendant E was charged with a summary charge of the instant fire; on March 31, 2015, Defendant E was notified of a summary order of KRW 3,000,000 by Busan District Court Decision 2015 High Court Decision 201Da950, and the said summary order became final and conclusive around that time.

The fire of this case destroyed the section for exclusive use of the building of this case and the household building owned by the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs leased and live another residential space.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry and video of Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including branch numbers for those with a branch number), significant facts in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above recognition of the occurrence of liability for damages, Defendant E does not have a fire extinguisher while working for a power generator that is likely to cause a fire, and does work in the vicinity of inflammables as it is.