logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.06.13 2016가단256894
구상금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 14,546,327 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from December 27, 2013 to June 13, 2017, and the following.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 8, 2010, the Plaintiff concluded a non-distribution franchise insurance contract with respect to the instant building (hereinafter “instant building”) from January 8, 2010 to January 8, 2015, the insurance period was from January 8, 2010 to the end of January 8, 2015, and entered into a non-distribution franchise insurance contract with respect to the instant building (value of KRW 150 million) of the subject matter of insurance (value of KRW 150 million), and KRW 10 million (one million) with respect to the household goods (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On February 15, 2011, the Defendant leased the second floor of the instant building (hereinafter “instant leased object”) from B, with the term of lease from April 8, 2011 to 24 months.

C. On December 2, 2013, at around 11:30, a fire was caused by an unregistered fire at the inside of the leased object of this case, and the inside of the leased object of this case was destroyed.

B asserted that the construction cost for the part that was incurred by the instant fire ought to be equivalent to KRW 70,000,000,000 as the construction cost for the said part.

As a result of the damage assessment, the Plaintiff determined that KRW 26,787,40, and KRW 2,305,254, total of KRW 29,092,654, were damages caused by the instant fire and paid KRW 29,092,654 to B on December 26, 2013.

However, when calculating the above amount of damages, the Plaintiff considered it difficult to determine the increase or decrease in the value before and after the fire of the building of this case through the restoration work to its original state, and recognized the total amount of the construction cost incurred due to the fire as damages.

E. B completed construction works on the part destroyed by fire within the leased object of this case with insurance money received from the Plaintiff.

[Ground of Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry or video of evidence A of subparagraphs 1 through 10, testimony of witness D, purport of whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. The lessee who has incurred liability for damages shall fulfill his duty of care as a good manager with respect to the preservation of the leased building, and the lessee.

arrow