2015 Gohap52677 Damage (as defined)

Ma-○

Incheon Gyeyang-gu Incheon Gyeyang-gu Campaign

Attorney Kim In-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant

1. ○○

2. Maximum ○○

Defendant 1, 2’s address, 36-20, 484 Cheongdong-gu, Namdong-gu, Incheon Cheongdong-gu (Hamdong-dong)

3. Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Company.

Seoul Jongno-gu 163 (Se-ro)

Lee Young-young, Park Jong-young,

[Judgment of the court below]

May 4, 2016

June 22, 2016

1. The Defendants jointly pay to the Plaintiff KRW 56, 590, 445 as well as 5% per annum from April 2, 2015 to June 22, 2016; and 15% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

3. One-half of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendants, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendants pay to each plaintiff 113, 180, 891 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the claim and the application for modification of the grounds for the claim to the day of this judgment and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties or may be recognized by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including the branch numbers, if any), and the descriptions or images of Eul evidence 1, 2, and 3 are insufficient to reverse them.

A. The relationship between the parties

On December 11, 2013, the Plaintiff is a person who is operating ○○ industry on the following occasions: (a) the owner leased the first floor of the concrete slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive slive sl.

B. The occurrence of the instant fire

On May 31, 2014: A fire (hereinafter referred to as “the fire of this case”) occurred in the Defendant factory at around 34: At around 20: (a) the removal of the fire to the Plaintiff factory adjacent to its influence, thereby causing damage to the Plaintiff’s inside machinery, office fixtures, and other similar acids, etc. of the Plaintiff factory. The placement of original, Defendant factory, adjacent buildings, etc. is the same as the separate drawing.

C. Investigation results, etc. on the fire causes of this case

1) In relation to the fire of this case, the National Institute of Scientific Investigation may exclude the left-hand side of the Defendant factory and the part of the Plaintiff factory from the point of combustion when considering the burning of the fire of this case. The part of the main plant is the shape where the inner combustion was expanded from the outside, and the part on the right-hand side of the Defendant factory is the shape where the burning was expanded from the outside in accordance with the exhaustr equipment system in the outer strings of the inside, and the first island is distinctive in the part on the right-hand side of the Defendant factory and the extension in the direction of the original plant is made after the lapse of time. However, considering that the CCTV video set out as an investigator's fee, the inside the frame of the Defendant factory can be limited to the initial combustion point, but it is not clearly distinguishable from the burning of the main body, such as electric light equipment installed inside the string frame and the stringter, etc., but it is not directly distinguishable from the burning of the main body, such as burning the burning and the burning of the main body.

2) The Incheon Industrial Complex Fire Prevention Board prepared a report on fire cause assessment that “I shall be presumed to have been caused by an aesthetic resistant vapor such as Toluene, which had been in a lower-level room or a exhaustr equipment in the factory of the defendant.”

2. Parties’ assertion

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

Since the fire of this case occurred due to defects in the installation and preservation of the presses installed for household painting operations in the Defendant factory, the Defendant Lee-○, the possessor and the owner of the presses, and the ○○○○, are liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the fire of this case pursuant to Article 758(1) of the Civil Act. The Defendant Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. is jointly and severally liable with the said Defendants in accordance with the insurance contract with the Defendant ○○○○ and the said Defendants for the damages of KRW 113,180,891 (the amount of mechanical loss + KRW 34,340,955 + the amount of KRW 13,50 + the amount of total damages + KRW 13,509,920 + the amount of KRW 65,330,016).

B. Summary of the defendants' assertion

Considering witness Kim ○-○’s statement, etc., the first point of extinguishment of the instant fire was not the Defendant’s factory, but it was an rare plant personnel, and the cause of the instant fire was not revealed even though the instant fire occurred in the Defendant factory, and there was no negligence on the part of the Defendant, ○○, and ○○○ in installing and preserving the Defendant factory, and there was no negligence on the part of the Defendant. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is unreasonable.

3. Determination

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

1) Defect in the installation or preservation of a structure under Article 758(1) of the Civil Act refers to a state in which a structure does not have safety ordinarily required in accordance with its use. Whether such safety is determined on the basis of whether the installer or the custodian of the structure fulfilled his/her duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required in proportion to the risk of the structure. Furthermore, an accident resulting from a defect in the installation or preservation of a structure does not mean only the defect in the installation or preservation of the structure causes damages, but it is deemed that the defect in the installation or preservation of the structure was caused by the defect in the construction or preservation of the structure, which is one of the common causes for the accident (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da101343, Apr. 29, 2010). Moreover, if a fire caused by a fire not installation or preservation defect in the structure, or a fire or the defect in the preservation of the structure, which is not revealed to have occurred due to the spread of the cause of the fire or the defect in the construction or preservation of the structure.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da61602 decided February 12, 2015, etc.).

2) According to the above facts, although the instant fire occurred inside the Defendant’s factory, the cause of the fire was not clearly revealed.

However, based on the above legal principle, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, where evidence as seen earlier is acknowledged that the entire purport of the pleading is combined, it is reasonable to deem that the defect in the installation and preservation of the presses or a studs installed in the Defendant factory with the maximum ○○○○, and the flammables installed to discharge inflammable vapors generated from the presses of the Defendant factory, etc., do not work properly, and thus, the fire in this case occurred due to the fact that the flammables remaining remaining without discharging from the presses of the Defendant factory, etc., and that the Plaintiff, the lessee of the Plaintiff factory, which is the neighboring building, caused damage to the Plaintiff. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the defect in the installation and preservation of the presses or a studs installed in the Defendant factory, etc., installed in the Defendant factory, was one of the co-offenders of the Plaintiff’s damage caused by the fire in this case.

① The first fire occurred at the frame inside the Defendant factory.

(2) As a facility for spraying inflammable agents is a facility for spraying inflammable agents, if a vapor created by sealing with such agents, etc. stays indoors, there is a risk of fire.

③ The Incheon Fire Agency presumed that the inflammable legacy, such as Toluene, which remains in the lower court or a gluene facility within the Defendant factory, have been caused by an aesthetic source.

④ In the right side of the Defendant factory, the presses and drying rooms are installed, and the right side of the Defendant factory is installed with four primary collecting machine, the second and third collecting facilities of container structure, etc., which collect the legacy discharged from the presses, etc. of the internal body, and the two and third collecting facilities are installed outside of the right side of the blockr. However, at the time of the instant fire, the inspection shuttles all possible among the blocking machines connected to the fourth unit of the first collecting machine at the time of the instant fire, or on the side of all the blockrs.

Since the installed mers blocking machine was in the state of 'brupt', there is a high possibility that the legacy machine in the press room could not have been discharged completely.

(5) Except fire extinguishers kept outside the presses, the fire extinguishing system inside the presses was not installed for early suppression of fire, such as sprinklers.

3) Accordingly, Defendant Lee ○○, ○○○, and ○○, jointly and severally, are the occupants or owners of presses or presses in the Defendant’s factory, and are liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to the instant fire pursuant to Article 758(1) of the Civil Act. The Defendant Company shall be deemed to have acquired the Plaintiff’s obligation to compensate for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff by exercising the Plaintiff’s direct right to claim under Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act, and thus, the Defendant Company shall be jointly and severally liable with Defendant ○○○○.

(b) Scope of damages;

The Plaintiff’s damages incurred due to the instant fire are as follows, which is acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the statement No. 7 evidence, the witness’s testimony and the purport of the entire pleadings.

(1) ① 34, 340, 955 won in machines, such as 14, 14, high speed cutting machines, stiffes, compacters, e.g., electricity handets, filling Handets, e.g., e., Lacker, large shackers, etc.

(2) Plastic fixtures, such as large-scale Plazers, electric temperatureers, work belts, and paths, 13, 509, 920 won.

(3) Movables 65, 330, 016 won, such as subsidiary materials, such as a kindergarten, panel, etc.

(4) Total amount: 113, 180, 891 won

C. Limitation on liability for damages

The defendants' liability is limited to 50% of the defendants' liability considering the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively considering the aforementioned evidence, the fact that the grounds for the fire of this case are not clearly revealed, the defendant factory and the plaintiff factory are close to the defendant factory, the defendant also seems to have suffered considerable property damage due to the fire of this case, the plaintiff's damaged goods are not destroyed, and the specific situation prior to the occurrence of the fire, the current status of use, the residual value due to depreciation, etc. are not accurately grasped, the specific amount of damage is bound to be estimated, and the possibility of an error is inherent, and the fact that the defendant Lee ○ and the largest ○○ violated the duty under the Fire Services Act and subordinate statutes.

4. Conclusion

A. Therefore, the Defendants are jointly obligated to jointly pay to the Plaintiff 56, 590, 445 won (113, 180, 891 won x 50%) and damages for delay calculated at 15% per annum under the Civil Act from April 2, 2015 to June 22, 2016, following the delivery of a copy of the claim and the application for change of cause, as sought by the Plaintiff, to the Plaintiff.

B. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Cho Sung-hee

Judges Kim Yong-min

Judges Choi Dong-hwan