logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.11.20 2019가단5169020
구상금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts C: (a) on July 6, 2018, water supply ice connecting ice (hereinafter “instant ice”) to the ice manufacturing machine at the coffee store located in the first floor of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D building (hereinafter “instant ice”) operated by the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant ice”) caused an accident where clothing stuffs, etc. in the underground floor of the said building were sucked into water (hereinafter “instant accident”).

As the previous water supply stuff connected to the instant ice was heated around June 28, 2018, the Defendant newly replaced on June 28, 2018, and the Defendant was not the manufacturer of the instant ice.

The instant ice removal machine was ice removal machine for which the AS period has elapsed without compensation, and the water supply ice was dried on three occasions from March 29, 2018 to June 28, 2018 even before the instant accident.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The grounds for the Plaintiff’s claim are as shown in the annexed sheet.

B. As the previous water supply ice connected to the instant ice, the Defendant changed the previous water supply ice to the instant ice on June 28, 2018, as seen earlier. However, even before the instant accident occurred, the Defendant erred by the Defendant’s act that replaced the previous water supply ice with the water supply ice on three occasions from March 29, 2018 to June 28, 2018, in light of the fact that the water supply ice was heated three times in total before the instant accident occurred.

The plaintiff's assertion is not acceptable without the need to review the remaining points, because it is not sufficient to recognize that there is a proximate causal relation between the defendant's above act and the accident of this case.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow