beta
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.10.16 2014가단232602

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 12,425,987 with the Plaintiff, and 5% per annum from August 6, 2013 to October 16, 2015.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 20, 2012, the Plaintiff leased approximately 33 square meters from the Defendants during the period from December 20, 2012 to December 26, 2013, a deposit of KRW 5 million, monthly rent of KRW 300,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 300,000,000, and the rental period from December 27, 2012 to December 26, 2013.

B. The Plaintiff is a corporation that runs a wholesale and retail business of computers and peripheral devices, and used the instant building as a warehouse that loads computer-related peripheral devices, etc.

On August 6, 2013, in order to get off a large number of rains, accidents caused by water leakages to the bottom of the building in this case (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

As a result, some of the products, such as composite equipment, frackers, frackers, and molds, which the plaintiff had kept, are damaged by milking in water.

C. At the time of the instant accident, 41 Class 725 items, such as composite equipment, fluor, fluor, mast, and earth and sand, all of which the Plaintiff had kept.

The plaintiff transferred this to the E 11-dong underground warehouse located in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government following the accident.

Among the above goods, 124 out of 239 items damaged by milbling boxes in water shall be the level of damage, and 115 items are serious.

On the other hand, 725 goods did not damage packaging boxes.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-1 through 4, Gap 2-1 through 10, Gap 3, and Eul 6's purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding that the Defendants, a lessor, failed to maintain the condition necessary for the Plaintiff to use and benefit from the instant building, which is the object of the lease, and thus, the Defendants are liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the instant accident.

The defendants asserted that the flooding occurred due to the inflow of flowing water outside the building due to rain, but it is not enough to recognize it only with the descriptions of B 3 to 6.

B. The appraisal result of the appraiser F of the scope of the damage compensation liability is one of the appraisal results.