손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff actually operated D (the title holder of business registration is the Plaintiff E) in Pakistan-si, Pakistan-si, and was engaged in the import and sale of electrical fences (wholly manufactured products).
B. At the time of strike, the Plaintiff leased two above ground warehouses of FF (hereinafter “instant warehouse”) from the Defendant and kept the products, such as electrical fences.
C. At around 16:00 on November 16, 2013, the Defendant: (a) stored waste incineration machines installed at approximately 2.5 meters away from the wall of the instant warehouse; (b) discovered a fire in the instant warehouse (hereinafter “instant fire”); (c) around 16:51 on the same day, products, such as the instant warehouse and the electrical fence, which were kept in storage.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 7, 8, Eul evidence 1-8, Eul evidence 1-8, the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The defendant's judgment as to the main defense of the safety of the defendant asserts that the product, such as electrical fences, kept in the warehouse of this case, is owned by D, and since D's business registration titleholder is E, the plaintiff is not entitled to bring the lawsuit of this case since the electrical fences, etc. stored in the warehouse of this case did not cause any damage to the plaintiff, even if the product, such as electrical fences,
On the other hand, in a lawsuit for performance, the standing to be a party is against the person who asserts that the plaintiff has the right to demand performance, which is the subject matter of the lawsuit, and the plaintiff does not require that the plaintiff is a person entitled to demand performance, and whether the plaintiff actually has the right to demand performance or not exists shall be proved through the deliberation of the merits (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da44387, 44394, Oct. 7, 2005). The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff is not the owner of electric fences and other products stored in the warehouse of this case, and even if the product was destroyed by fire of this case, it does not cause any damage to the plaintiff.