logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.14 2018나45017
구상금
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

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

3. The total cost of the lawsuit.

Reasons

1. Basic fact-finding insurance period: Insurance policy holders and insured workers on January 3, 2017 to January 3, 2020: Family member's liability for living compensation (a subscription amount: 100,000,000 won, and the insured's family member and his/her family member, compensation damage: Damage sustained by bearing the liability for physical disability of other persons or other person's property damage due to a sudden accident attributable to the insured's daily life);

A. A. A around January 2017, the Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract with a non-dividend Capital (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”). The content of the instant insurance contract relating to the instant case is as follows.

B. B is the policyholder of the instant insurance contract and the insured, and C is the E’s incidental, the owner of D Apartment 419 dong 804 (hereinafter “804”) at the time of harmony, and B and C are the friendship.

C. Around May 5, 2017, E and F, their parents, were transferred to B for overseas travel as 804, their residence.

B around May 6, 2017, around the new wall, 804, installed in the internal wall studio (hereinafter referred to as “short studio”) and then installed the water stude and installed the water stude with the water strawing.

As a result, water flows into the 419-dong 704, below the 804th floor below the 419th floor (hereinafter “the damaged apartment of this case”) and the internal finishing materials and household straws of the damaged apartment of this case caused damage to the water.

hereinafter referred to as "the accident of this case"

(e) On July 19, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 45,00,00 to G, the owner and householder of the instant apartment accident, in order to compensate for the damage caused by the instant accident. [Grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff did not dispute, each of the entries (including the number of evidence Nos. 4) in Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5 (including the number of evidence No. 4), and the purport of the entire pleadings, including video No. 2,

2. Determination:

A. The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the instant accident can be carried out in the studio.

arrow