logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.01.19 2017가합100964
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 169,370,454 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from March 28, 2016 to January 19, 2018.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. 1) Status of the parties, etc. 1) “B” officetels in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant officetel”).

(2) On July 2014, the construction site was scheduled to be completed on or around September 2016 after commencing the construction project with a business license around September 2015. The construction site was divided into two units of Ddong (Ldong) on the ground of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and Fdong (Ndong) on the ground of the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government block, and the construction was conducted at the same time by constructing the same structure, and the underground floor of Ddong and Fdong was connected with the passage as a parking lot. 2) The implementer of the instant officetel E is the Plaintiff, Korea Urban Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Urban Development”), Si Corporation, and the constructor of the instant officetel C block, the Han River Industry, and the Defendant Corporation.

3) On July 16, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for construction work with the construction cost of KRW 18,000,000 (Additional tax separate) with respect to the construction work of the Fdong on the ground of the instant officetel E block (Ndong), from September 1, 2014 to May 30, 2016, and extended the construction period of Korea’s urban development and construction period from April 20, 2015 to September 30, 2016. (B) On the instant officetel’s new construction work of the instant officetel C block, the Plaintiff was an employee of the Plaintiff, who was subcontracted by the Defendant, for the construction work of KRW 18,00,00,000 (Additional tax separate) and the construction period from September 1, 2014 to May 30, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “original damage”). However, the Plaintiff was an employee of the Plaintiff, who was an employee of the instant officetel C block (hereinafter referred to as “E”) from the instant fire No. 1414th.

Review of the point of combustion: the person concerned's statement, the process of burning, the placement of combustible materials, and the burning situation of the point of combustion are integrated, and the fire of the light emultan and emultan, installed in the ceiling by first burning out from the discharge pipe work at the 1st floor parking lot of C block-dong underground, and burning of the light emultan and emultan.

arrow