logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.05.19 2016나65109
구상금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who concluded a fire insurance contract between November 23, 2012 and B with regard to the insurance period of the building and facilities located in the Sosan City, as between November 23, 2012 and November 23, 2013.

B. On November 17, 2013, around 10:30, a fire (hereinafter “the fire in this case”) occurred inside the lower warehouse (hereinafter “instant warehouse”) of the first floor of the building E located in the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “instant warehouse”) following the co-Defendant D, the co-Defendant D of the first instance trial on November 17, 2013, resulting in an accident that the outer wall of the building C located adjacent to the F coffee store, and the outer wall of the building C located adjacent to the F coffee store was destroyed by the accident.

C. In relation to the instant fire, the National Institute of Scientific Investigation and the North Korea Coast Guard and the North Korea Coast Guard do not discuss the specific cause of outbreak, such as “the fire extinguishing department of the instant fire is limited to the fire extinguishing department inside the instant warehouse; the inside of the warehouse which is limited to the fire extinguishing department of the instant fire is seriously damaged and modified; thus, the specific point of combustion inside the warehouse cannot be limited; whether the fire extinguishing department of the instant fire is caused by an electrical cause for the inspection of the remaining remaining residues; whether the fire is caused by a fire remaining after a string of a strings; or whether it is caused by a fire remaining after a strings of a strings; or if it is caused by any other cause not verified.

‘Written conclusion' was reached. D.

On February 7, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 7,193,029 as insurance money to B.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries and images of Gap evidence 1 through 8 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The summary of the parties’ assertion 1 Plaintiff’s fire first occurred at the store of this case occupied and used by the Defendant. This is sufficient for electric installations installed in a warehouse that keeps the most vulnerable paper boxes, paints, and shoes, etc.

arrow