logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.08.13 2014나50397
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The Plaintiff is a person who has been engaged in import and sale business, such as electrical summary, with the trade name of the Plaintiff: (a) the Plaintiff: (b) the Plaintiff was registered under the name of his own child E; (c) G, the Defendant’s husband, owned a house located on the F at the time of Pakistan (hereinafter “instant house”) and two warehouses (hereinafter “instant warehouse”); (d) around January 15, 2013, the Plaintiff leased the instant warehouse from G, and kept the electrical summary, etc. owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant stored goods”).

B. (1) On November 16, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 15:30, the fire in the instant warehouse; and (b) around 2.4 meters away from the wall of the instant warehouse; and (c) around November 16, 2013, the steel waste incineration box (hereinafter “instant incineration box”).

(2) On November 16, 2013, a fire occurred in the warehouse of this case and the storage of this case, which was kept inside the warehouse of this case, were destroyed.

(hereinafter “instant fire”). C.

1) As a result of the on-site inspection conducted by the police station of the instant fire on November 17, 2013, the so-called “On-site inspection on the instant fire.” The so-called “on-site inspection” was conducted three times from November 16, 2013 to November 19, 2013 on the instant fire on the ground that the instant fire was damaged due to the installation of heavy equipment in the process of extinguishing the fire, and the removal or alteration of the structure of the instant warehouse, making it impossible for the on-site inspection alone to limit the area of the instant fire, and it is impossible to determine the cause of the instant fire on-site inspection of the so-called “on-site inspection on the fire.” The Defendant and the Plaintiff’s wife conducted the on-site inspection on the instant fire on November 16, 2013 to November 19, 2013.

arrow