beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 92,506,456 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from July 5, 2012 to July 25, 2013.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On September 1, 2011, the Plaintiff leased the low temperature storage room located in the tea port (hereinafter “instant storage room”) from the Defendant on September 1, 201, the lease period from September 1, 2011 to May 30, 2012, and the rent of KRW 7 million during the lease period, and the Plaintiff kept the seeds and pots in the instant storage room.
B. However, around 23:40 on November 14, 201, a fire (hereinafter “instant fire”) occurred in the instant storage area, and the vehicle owned by the Plaintiff, which was in the front room of the capital reduction and the storage room kept by the Plaintiff, was destroyed.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 7-1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. Although the Plaintiff, a lessor, has a duty to maintain the instant storage space, which is the leased object, in a state necessary for the use and profit-making thereof, the Defendant, as the lessor, was negligent in violating this duty, caused the instant fire by the combination of electric source code, such as lighting on the front room, the front room, the tent and the front section, which is the area controlled by the lessor, and thereby, caused damage to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the nonperformance or tort, or is liable to compensate the Plaintiff as the possessor and the owner of the instant storage space.
Meanwhile, the seed reduction of 19,160 Kg (on the market price of 47,805,00 won), 98,940 Kg (on the market price of 134,954,160 won), and one for whom one for whom one for whom one for whom one for whom one for whom one for the other (5,000 won is 5,000 won) was to be destroyed due to the fire of this case. In order to reuse pots into the warehouse of an agricultural corporation, the Defendant paid KRW 7,710,00 and KRW 5,00,000 for working expenses and transportation expenses while moving to the warehouse of an agricultural corporation to reuse pots. Accordingly, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 20,469,160 for property compensation, and the Plaintiff also paid the Plaintiff KRW 200,469,160 for each of the above money.