logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.02.15 2016나28599
부당이득금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendant’s KRW 26,729,394 as well as 5% per annum from September 6, 2013 to February 15, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is the same as that of the “1. Basic Facts” written by the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the grounds for the court’s explanation is acceptable pursuant to the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. 2. The grounds for the court’s explanation on this part of the parties’ assertion are the same as that of the “2. Parties’ assertion” of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main text

3. Determination

A. The victims of the instant fire, which caused the occurrence and scope of the victims’ liability insurance claims against the Defendant, may directly claim compensation pursuant to Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act to the Defendant, the insurer, as the insured of the instant liability insurance contract, as follows.

1) The fire of this case occurred within 101 dong 1001 and 1001 of the apartment of this case and caused the first fire-fighting point and its causes were revealed clearly. However, as the apartment of this case was occupied, owned, owned, directly and specifically controlled, and managed the apartment of this case, the fire of this case is presumed to be due to the failure of D to fulfill its duty to take measures for protection and protection to prevent the occurrence and spread of fire (see Article 758 of the Civil Act). Accordingly, D is liable to compensate the victims of the fire of this case for damages caused by the fire of this case. (2) The damages amount of common use due to the fire of this case to the victims of the common use area is 16,874,444, and the total exclusive use area of the apartment of this case is 22,59,822,101, the parties to this case, the exclusive use area of this case, the exclusive use area of this case, is 1051,696.

However, the share of each co-owner on the section for common use of a partitioned building is that.

arrow