Law Firm △△, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Attorney Park Sang-hoon

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The plaintiff is the owner of chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip.

B. The stadium of this case is a sports facility created in the form of a park and the total area of which is 231,127 square meters (138,561 square meters on land, sea 92,566 square meters). In addition to the main building in the stadium in charge of the management and operation of the stadium, the stadium of this case has a maritime mooring place where 42 buildings and yachts, such as Busan film shooting scisd, Siineme park, etc., and each land mooring place of Dong and Dong (293 ships for the yachts and 155 ships for the land mooring place), and around 50 companies run yachts and management business by borrowing a building from the defendant.

C. Around August 29, 2005, the Plaintiff submitted to the Management Office of the Yak Stak Stak Stak Stak Stak Stak Stak Stak Stak Stak Stak Stak Stak Stak Stak Stak St., that the instant yacht can be moored at the marine mooring port by February 28, 2006. On August 31, 2005, the Plaintiff paid KRW 00,000 as the mooring expenses on the same day after obtaining the permission. At the time of the above use permission, the Defendant was not responsible for vessel damage or loss, and it was difficult for the Defendant to thoroughly use vessel management as a condition for vessel use permission. The Plaintiff was designated as the manager of the yacht Stak Stak Stak Stak Stak Stak, the Plaintiff operated the vessel repair business under the trade name of "0" at the ground mooring area in the instant yacht Stak Stak Stak St.

D. However, the instant yacht, which had been mooring at the first ocean mooring point, was mooring at the same ground mooring point in front of the vessel repair shop in the operation of the said AA, and on October 00, 2005, the instant yacht was destroyed by a fire that was destroyed to the instant yacht that was moored at the same ground mooring point on the same surface mooring point on around 00:00, and all of the instant yachts were destroyed to the instant yacht (hereinafter referred to as the “fire accident”).

[Ground of Recognition] In without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 1-3, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 10-1, 6-9, Eul evidence 21, Eul evidence 21, Eul evidence 21, Eul witness BB's testimony, result of on-site inspection of this court, the whole purport of the pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, while being in charge of the mooring and management of the instant yacht, paid the costs for the mooring and management to the Defendant, and concluded the contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. The Plaintiff breached the duty of due care as a good manager under the contract for the management of the instant yacht, such as neglecting the expenses for the yacht stadium, thereby causing the instant fire. Even if the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not recognize the contractual relationship for the instant yacht, the Defendant is obliged to pay KRW 95,167,000, which is equivalent to the market price of the instant yacht as compensation for the nonperformance or unlawful act, to the extent that the Defendant exclusively manages the instant yacht stadium, such as installing guard and CCTV at the entrance of the stadium and the entrance of each yacht, etc., inasmuch as the instant yacht exclusively manages the instant stadium, the Defendant neglected his duty of care to safely protect the instant yacht, and thus, the instant fire accident occurred.

However, in light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence mentioned above and the facts acknowledged as follows, namely, the ground mooring place of this case where the fire accident occurred is part of the yacht stadium facility of this case where anyone can enter without any specific control. The key of the yacht course in the stadium of this case is in custody by the owner or the manager designated by the owner or the manager of the yacht, so that the owner or the manager of the yacht can freely operate the yacht and enter the sea. The defendant clearly made it clear that he was not liable for the management of the yacht course of this case at the time when he permits the plaintiff to do so. The plaintiff separately designated the manager of the yacht, and even if the amount received by the defendant is relatively small amount compared to the market price of the yacht course of this case, it is difficult to view that the defendant maintained the duty of management of the yacht course of this case, which is a sports facility installed and operated by him, as well as the duty of management of the plaintiff and the defendant to maintain the order or use of the yacht course of this case, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the contract of this case was established with the plaintiff or the defendant.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion seeking damages due to nonperformance or tort is without merit, on the premise that the Defendant was negligent in neglecting his/her duty of care with respect to the damage to the yacht of this case owned by the Plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

For judge Laos

The full completion of judges;