손해배상(기)
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 12,800,000 as well as to the plaintiff on September 3, 2015.
1. The reasoning for this part of the reasoning is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Establishment of liability for damages;
A. In light of the contents and purpose of the instant lease agreement prior to the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to supply the Plaintiff with electricity and water under the instant water, and the Defendant also bears the obligation to supply the Plaintiff with the water of the instant water. As the supply of electricity is prevented due to the heating of one of the four pumps that supply the water of the said water of the said water (hereinafter “instant water”) and the supply of water was suspended due to the suspension of the operation of the entire four pumps, the instant accident that the Plaintiff owned by the said water of the instant water was destroyed due to the lack of oxygen.
Thus, the defendant can be deemed to have failed to properly performed the duty of supplying electricity and water under the instant lease agreement. Meanwhile, the debtor's cause attributable to the nonperformance is presumed, and the debtor is liable for proving the absence of cause attributable to him/her (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Meu1864, Mar. 26, 1985). Thus, the defendant is liable for all damages incurred by the plaintiff due to the instant accident that occurred due to the failure to perform the said duty of supplying electricity and water, barring special circumstances.
B. The defendant's defense 1) The summary of the defense is as follows: (1) The defendant's defense is not held liable for damages since the defendant's cause cannot be acknowledged for the same reasons as the (2).
① The cause of the instant pumps is that the pumps continue to operate in the state where the pipes to supply the water of the instant water tanks did not supply water after blocking them with foreign substances, such as water banks. As above, the Plaintiff, who is responsible for the management of the water tanks of the instant case, was responsible for the management of water tanks of the instant case.