beta
Text
1. The Defendant paid KRW 5,006,466 to the Plaintiff KRW 5% per annum from July 15, 2016 to March 28, 2017.
Reasons
1. The description of the claim is as shown in the separate sheet of claim(s) and “the cause of the modified claim(s).”
2. Judgment by service (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act).
3. Part concerning partial dismissal
A. According to the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff as to the establishment of liability for damages (i.e., the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the instant fire, since the fire was found to have occurred on the electrical ship inside the Defendant’s house.
The Defendant’s liability is limited to 90% of the Defendant’s compensation, taking into account all the circumstances indicated in the instant pleadings, including the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the respective statements in Gap, Gap’s 3, 4, 8, and 9 (including, if any, the number of pages), and the overall purport of the pleadings, namely, the possibility of incidentalism cannot be ruled out completely, and the possibility of electrical factors cannot be fully ruled out, but the physical evidence is not identified, but the exact cause of the instant fire is not revealed because the possibility of electrical factors is nonexistent, and the Plaintiff’s housing is connected with the Defendant’s housing, and the fire is more easily
B. (i) The scope of liability for damages: (a) if a building is damaged due to an act of reducing the exchange value of the Plaintiff’s housing, if its repair is impossible, the exchange value of the building would be ordinary damages; and (b) if the repair is possible, the repair cost, i.e., the repair cost, if the building is ordinary damages; or (c) the repair cost required to restore the building to its original state because the building was a old and old building with its useful life at the time of damage exceeds the exchange value of the building, the amount of damages should be limited to the exchange value
(See Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1926 delivered on November 24, 1987, etc.). In other words, the following are acknowledged by the health care unit, the evidence mentioned above, and the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 5 and 11 as a whole, and the entire pleadings.