logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.05.23 2016나2078562
구상금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following cases: therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the

2. Section 13 of the third part of the judgment of the court of first instance (“B” of the general terms and conditions of this case’s insurance contract was cut to “ Section 2: Pats” of the common terms and conditions of this case’s insurance contract.

The 6th and 20th of the judgment of the first instance court shall be followed as follows.

In light of the above legal principles, this case is examined.

As seen earlier, when entering into an entrustment livestock contract on January 7, 2014, the Defendant and D have to subscribe to the fire insurance policy on the building in the livestock raising place and submit a copy of the insurance policy to D, and D have to subscribe to the livestock mutual aid insurance policy.

“The fact-finding inquiry of the first instance court on the grounds that D is obliged to subscribe to livestock mutual-aid insurance as seen above is to obtain compensation with the livestock mutual-aid insurance purchased by D, instead of holding the Defendant, who is the entrusting breeding farm, not liable for damages caused by the death of livestock, such as compensation for damages caused by the death of livestock.

“In addition, D responded to the purport that “In the event a fire-related damage occurs to a building and livestock, the building damage was the insurance to which the Defendant subscribed, and the livestock damage was the insurance covered by D, and the mutual compensation for the said damage was not claimed.” In addition, D decided not to claim a mutual compensation for such damage.

The waiver of the right to claim damages, such as the above, had already been made by entering into an entrustment contract with the Defendant before entering into the instant insurance contract.

“If there is liability for the damage of livestock to the farm household on full scale, day, and on consignment raising, it shall be liable for such damage.

arrow