beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2011.12.01 2010나86053

손해배상(기)

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 71,961,249 against the Plaintiff and Defendant SP Co., Ltd.

Reasons

Basic Facts

The court's explanation on this part is as stated in the part of "1. Basic Facts", except that "the security service business" under the system security service method [other than that under the system security service method (including the public line, exclusive line, unmanned network, Internet, etc.) connected with the control center of the company through the communications line (including the public line, exclusive line, unmanned network, etc.) with the equipment of the company and notification to the relevant agency of the dispatch personnel of the company to the site or to prevent early detection and expansion of the accident by sending out or notifying the dispatch personnel of the company to the site," which is the same as the part of "the basic facts" under Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the goods of this case worth KRW 350 million in market price are stolen by opening the factory of this case to the Plaintiff’s creditors without the Plaintiff’s permission. As such, Defendant SP is liable to compensate for damages due to tort or nonperformance of obligations under the security service agreement of this case (the Plaintiff sought damages due to tort or preliminary claim, but the above two claims are compatible with each other, and thus, are deemed selective claim). Defendant B is liable to compensate for damages due to tort, and each of the Plaintiff is liable to pay damages amounting to KRW 350 million in market price.

On October 1, 2009, Defendant B, the owner and manager of the factory of this case, requested Defendant B to cancel the system expenses related to the factory of this case in order to block all of the above factory as follows 2. Since it is impossible to block all of the above factory, such circumstance constitutes a reason for suspending the provision of services under Article 9(1)5 and 6 of the terms and conditions of the instant security service contract.

Accordingly, Defendant E.S. notified the Plaintiff of these circumstances, but no answer is made.