손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The plaintiff is the person who has brought a lawsuit in the brigade City B, and the defendant is a corporation that carries out the business of leasing, repairing, storing agricultural machinery and other equipment.
On July 2016, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to manufacture the instant agricultural machinery (hereinafter referred to as “the instant agricultural machinery”) consisting of the parts of the lower parts of the agricultural machinery owned by the Plaintiff, the compactone, and the parts of the original parts of the agricultural machinery (a compressed machine to be easily treated as beer and dried), and the Defendant manufactured and sold the instant agricultural machinery to the Plaintiff in response thereto.
From August 23, 2016, the Plaintiff used the instant agricultural machinery in the walthy field of innju City C, and completed work at around 20:00, and returned back to the Republic of Korea after having laid down the operation of the said agricultural machinery.
However, the remaining heat in the engine part of the above agricultural machinery was transferred to the main rooftop leaf leaves, etc. (hereinafter “the instant fire”) and accordingly, the agricultural machinery of this case was destroyed by the fire.
(Reasons for Recognition) Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, the result of appraiser D’s appraisal, the purport of the whole pleadings.
Plaintiff’s assertion
The agricultural machinery of this case was modified to operate three machines with a single engine (nives, compacters, compacters, etc.). In such a case, there was a risk of overheating the engine capacity due to lack of engine capacity.
Although the Defendant, as an agricultural machinery expert, did not warn the Plaintiff of the risks of engine heating, or inform the Plaintiff of the fact that it should be prevented through the addition of cooling devices or the increase of engine capacity, etc., and even upon receiving a request from the Plaintiff for A/S on the heat of the instant mechanical engine, the Defendant did not set up a pller cover or not recommend installation, and thus, the Defendant did not comply with the duty of care to be borne by the remodeling assembly of the instant machine.
Therefore, the defendant is negligent in the occurrence of the fire of this case.