손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. Basic facts 1) The Plaintiff’s studio-family housing 302, located in the Gu-Si, Si, Gu-si, the Defendant owned (hereinafter “instant housing”).
(2) On July 8, 2016, when the Plaintiff and the Defendant leased the instant house to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff discovered that the air conditioners installed on the wall of the instant house (hereinafter referred to as the “air conditioners”) had an abnormal sound, and that the air conditioners were shaking, the Plaintiff called to the customer center of the air conditioners, and thereafter, the Plaintiff suffered an accident that the air conditioners suffered from the air conditioners, which the Plaintiff left from the floor of the instant air conditioners and went against against against the Plaintiff.
(3) The Plaintiff suffered injury corresponding to approximately three weeks in total due to the damage to the fresh’s fresh and power lines, other damage to the fresh’s fresh and power lines, and other damage to the fresh’s unknown details, and the tension of the cresh. [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, and evidence No. 1 (Evidence No. 11) (the same as evidence No. 11).
- Each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 9, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings
B. Comprehensively taking account of the above facts acknowledged as liability, Gap evidence No. 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the air conditioners in this case did not have a sufficient safe installation on the wall surface of the house in this case, thereby causing the accident in this case, and the plaintiff suffered injury as seen earlier due to the accident in this case.
The results of the fact-finding inquiry conducted by the first instance National Health Insurance Corporation (as of December 7, 2016 and December 14, 2016) and the results of the fact-finding inquiry conducted by D Hospital alone are insufficient to reverse the recognition, and there is no reflective proof otherwise.
Therefore, the Defendant, as the owner of the instant house, was the direct occupant of the instant house and the Plaintiff, the lessee, due to the defect in the construction or preservation of the said structure.