logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.04.13 2017나9666
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

Basic Facts

The status of the parties is that the Plaintiff is engaged in the comprehensive repair facility business, the main wholesale and retail business, etc. with the trade name of “F” on the first floor and underground level of “E building in Gwangju City”.

Defendant B, Inc., and 'Defendant Company'

The company is engaged in the wholesale and retail business of vehicle parts in Gwangju City, and the defendant C is an employee of the defendant company.

A fire accident occurred on April 2, 2016. Around 14:48, Defendant C incinerated waste and miscellaneous oil, etc. at a factory located in the Defendant Company’s workplace. A fire was caused by the remaining fire, such as nearby miscellaneous plants and vehicle parts, and the fire was extended to nearby storage, camping, etc.

hereinafter referred to as "the fire of this case"

In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

2) On the instant land, the container storage, freezing tower, yellow soil storage, Mongolian, etc. were installed, and the main container storage, construction materials, and other materials were stored inside the container storage, etc., or the goods such as the main container storage, etc. were destroyed or damaged due to the instant fire. However, due to the instant fire, the fire of this case, the foregoing container storage, etc. and the main container storage, etc. were destroyed or damaged by the fire. 【Unfounded grounds for recognition, A’s 1 through 11, 14 through 19, and Eul’s 2 (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply).

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the instant fire was caused by negligence, even though the Defendant C had a duty of care to prevent the occurrence of a fire, such as setting up the following, by comprehensively taking into account the underlying facts as to the existence of the liability to compensate for damages, the purport of the entire pleadings, and the purport of the entire arguments, as seen earlier, and the overall purport of the arguments.

arrow