beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 평택지원 2018.01.25 2016가단5134

손해배상청구

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 86,257,90 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from September 26, 2017 to January 25, 2018.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. At around 15:20 on October 17, 2015, the Defendant: (a) connected the Defendant’s house outside the Defendant’s house, which was located in Ansan-si, with the mobile sirens from the gas pipe filled with LPG gas (hereinafter “gas pipe”); and (b) moved to the surrounding area of the Defendant’s house, where the gas pipe was heated due to the heat of gas sirens, due to the strawing of the stamper, the Defendant did not have the responsibility for raising the studios from the gas pipe filled with LPG gas over a single meter; and (c) as the gas pipe was overheed due to the heat of gas sirens, the gas filled with the operation of the

As a result, the part of the defendant's warehouse was destroyed, and the house and warehouse in D were relocated to the plaintiff's residence.

(hereinafter “instant fire”). B.

On February 18, 2016, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 5 million as a crime of extinguishing fire in relation to the instant fire by approximately KRW 2015 high-ranking7169 of this Court.

C. At Ansan-si, the Plaintiff directly constructed a prefabricated-type house (the completion of 2012; hereinafter “prefabricated-type house”), a multi-story house of 2nd floor (the inside of prefabricated-type first floor house, the completion of 2012; hereinafter “multi-house house”) and a warehouse (the completion of 2003; hereinafter “existing warehouse”), and was residing in his spouse and/or a scar. However, the said building was destroyed by the instant fire.

Expert E evaluated 60,061,455 won for prefabricatedd houses at the time of the instant fire, 32,327,143 won for plastic houses, and 15,43,777 won for existing warehouses as 107,822,375 won.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff received KRW 20 million deposited by the Defendant as compensation for damages.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, result of appraiser E’s appraisal, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Since the fire of this case occurred by negligence of the defendant, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages caused by the fire.

B. According to Article 3(1) of the Act on the Liability for the Limitation of Liability, a person who loses equipment has no gross negligence.