logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2017.03.17 2016가합1164
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Defendant B Co., Ltd and C jointly share KRW 20,973,733 and its amount from April 2, 2016 to March 17, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The Plaintiff is a person engaged in comprehensive repair facility business, wholesale and retail business, etc. with the trade name “F” on the first floor and underground level of the “E-building in Gwangju City”. 2) Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is a company engaged in automobile parts wholesale and retail business, etc. in Gwangju City, and Defendant C is an employee of the Defendant Company, and Defendant D is the representative director of the Defendant Company. (b) The occurrence of a fire accident. (i) Defendant C was unable to retire waste and boom at a factory site located in the Defendant Company’s workplace on April 2, 2016, around 14:48, and it was difficult for the Defendant C to extinguish waste and booming, etc., and fire was spreaded to combustible materials, such as neighboring miscellaneous plants, vehicles parts, etc. (hereinafter “instant fire”).

(2) The Plaintiff is the Plaintiff’s land adjacent to the Defendant Company’s workplace, etc., hereinafter “instant land”).

) The container storage, freezing tower, yellow soil storage, Mongolian, etc. were installed on the top of the container storage, etc., and the main storage, construction materials, and other materials were stored inside the container storage, etc. or the goods such as the main storage, etc. were destroyed on the instant land. However, due to the fire in this case, the fire in this case destroyed the aforementioned container storage, etc. and the goods such as the main storage, etc. [Grounds for Recognition], Gap 1 through 11, 14 through 19, Eul 2 (including the main number; hereinafter the same shall apply).

each entry, video, and the purport of the whole oral proceedings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant fire occurred due to Defendant C’s negligence on the part of Defendant C related to the instant fire.

Therefore, Defendant C as a tort, as the employer of each of the Defendant C, must compensate the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the instant fire.

In addition, the building and warehouse where the fire of this case occurred are illegal buildings vulnerable to fire-fighting systems, which are the owner thereof.

arrow