logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2013.08.27 2012가합14315
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On September 30, 2009, the Plaintiff operated a lighting facility business site (hereinafter “instant business site”) with the trade name “C,” from the underground floor of the building located in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “C”), but on September 30, 2009, the instant business site was flooded and the flooding accident occurred (hereinafter “instant flood accident”).

B. After the occurrence of the flood accident in the instant case, the Plaintiff requested drainage to the Incheon Southern Fire Prevention Center, and the fire fighters belonging to the Incheon Southern Fire Prevention Center dispatched to the fire fighters, and performed drainage work on the instant workplace over this frame.

C. In addition, on October 1, 2009, the Plaintiff visited the Dong-dong Office in Incheon, Nam-gu, Incheon, requesting support such as drainage and cleaning, and the desired workers dispatched at the Dong office were engaged in cleaning and cleaning of the instant workplace throughout several days. D.

On October 26, 2009, the Plaintiff reported that the water supply personnel installed near the instant place of business was sold to the Southern Waterworks Center, which was affiliated with the Defendant, and the staff of the water supply center in charge of the south Southern Waterworks Center under the Defendant was dispatched to the site around 18:00 on the day of receiving the said report and completed the water supply facility repair work at around 21:00.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 13, Eul evidence 1-1 through 5, witness E, and F's testimony and purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment as to the plaintiff

A. The plaintiff's assertion is that the defendant neglected his duty of care to replace the old water supply pipes under his control so that water leakage from the water supply pipes could not occur, and that water leakage occurred in the water supply pipes installed near the place of business of this case. The water flown from the above water supply pipes into the place of business through the exchange machinery of the place of business of this case, and 109,400 in the place of business of this case.

arrow