손해배상(기)
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On June 30, 2009, the Plaintiff leased the two entire floors of the building located on the ground D (hereinafter “the instant building”). After doing so, the Plaintiff operated “E”, “F Gameland” (hereinafter “the instant amusement room”), and “Granob” (hereinafter “the instant singing room”). On October 23, 2012, the Plaintiff sub-leased the instant singing room and its equipment to the Defendant B.
From that time, Defendant B operated the instant singing machines.
B. On May 27, 2014, the fire started on the upper part of the ceiling of the instant building singing room (hereinafter “instant fire”), and the instant singing room was destroyed by a fire of 330 square meters on the second floor of the instant building including the instant singing room.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the fire of this case occurred in the instant singing room possessed by the Defendant B, and the said Defendant is liable to compensate for the damages caused by the fire as the possessor of the instant singing room, which is a structure. Since the fire of this case occurred in breach of the duty of care to use and manage the instant singing room, it is liable to compensate for damages under Article 750 of the Civil Act
Therefore, pursuant to Article 750 or 758 of the Civil Act, Defendant B shall compensate the Plaintiff for 202,836,000 won, which is the amount equivalent to the Plaintiff’s damages, and Defendant Samsung Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. shall compensate the Plaintiff for the damages pursuant to Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act, as the insurer that concluded the fire insurance contract with Defendant B
3. Determination
A. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the causes of the instant fire, the facts acknowledged before the point of occurrence, the entry of Gap evidence No. 1, the chief of the police station of this court, and the purport of the entire reply to the commission of delivery of documents to the chief of Scheon Fire Station:
The results of the investigation of the fire site of this case are as follows.