logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.09.19 2015가단210299
구상금
Text

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

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The structure of the building of this case and the status of the parties thereto 1) The building A or D(hereinafter collectively referred to as "the building of this case") of the same structure as that of the attached Form C, which is the same as that of the attached Form B, Busan-gu.

2) Defendant A leased the instant building D’s D’ (hereinafter “D’) part from C to use it as a warehouse, etc., and Party A used the “F” part of the attached drawings adjacent to the instant building. The Plaintiff is an insurer that entered into a fire insurance contract with Party E, and Defendant Samsung Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. is the insurer that entered into a fire-fighting liability insurance contract with Defendant A.

B. On May 24, 2014, around 18:54, May 24, 2014, the instant fire was destroyed and inspected (hereinafter “instant fire”).

(2) The National Science Investigation Institute presumed that the instant fire was first launched inside the D Building due to the occurrence of the instant building, and the instant building was melted, and the building adjacent to the instant building, and the inventory goods were removed. (2) However, it was difficult to limit the specific cause of the outbreak through the on-site investigation as the steel structure and electric ship of the inspected parts were melted due to severe combustion.

3) At the Busan Northern Fire Fighting Station, the instant fire was first launched near the entrance of the D building, but it was concluded that it is difficult to find out the heat sources, fire extinguishing factors, and the first cargo. (c) The Plaintiff paid KRW 229,807,142 out of the damages incurred by the instant fire to E on October 28, 2014 according to the insurance contract between E and E. [based on recognition], the Plaintiff did not have any dispute over the damages incurred by the instant fire. [The grounds for recognition], the entry and video of the evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Nos. 1, 2, and 1, 2, and 1, as well as the statement and video of the evidence Nos. 1, 1, 2, and 1, respectively.

arrow