beta
(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2016.01.15 2015가단101988

손해배상(기)

Text

Defendant D and E jointly and severally with the Plaintiff KRW 63,659,380, and 5% per annum from April 23, 2014 to February 12, 2015.

Reasons

Basic Facts

On the second floor of the building located in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, the Plaintiff operated the skin management room (hereinafter “instant skin management room”) with the trade name “G”, and on April 23, 2014, fire occurred within the above skin management room.

(hereinafter “instant fire”. The result of the fire site identification conducted by the Gyeonggi Provincial Police Agency on February 24, 2014 was as follows: (a) 2014. At the instant skin management room, there were four simple beds; (b) the two fire was serious; (c) the fire was serious; (d) there was serious damage to the temperature saving machine connected with the electricity board on a simplified bed (hereinafter “the instant electricity board”); and (e) on the floor, the said temperature saving machine and the electric power source line were located.

According to the results of the appraisal review conducted by the Seoul Scientific Investigative Research Institute on May 13, 2014, the power source code connected to the temperature control machine of this case was found to be melting melting by the line, while the power source code connected to the temperature control machine of this case was found to be melting melting by the line, but the electrical characteristics of the temperature control machine itself were not identified.

Based on the results of the above appraisal, if the location of the temperature saving devices of this case was turned on at the time of a fire, it was found that it was turned out in the process of forming a melting trace by the counter line, and if the above location was turned out, it was determined that the smokeing clothes of the electric power source code was damaged.

In the temperature control period of electric design boards located in other simple beds in the skin management office of this case, the trade name of “H” was attached to Defendant D and E, a business entity substantially operated by Defendant D and E. However, Defendant B and C had manufactured the above temperature control machine upon entrustment from the above H and supplied it to H.

Although the temperature control of this case is similar to the above temperature control apparatus, it is possible to confirm the trade name with the damaged condition.