logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.08.14 2019나6040
구상금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On August 20, 2014, the Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an insurance contract for liability for damage from gas accidents (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with the maximum insurance amount of KRW 80,000,000 between August 30, 2014 and August 30, 2015, with the insurance amount of KRW 80,000 (per person) and KRW 30,000,000 between D and D.

B. On June 4, 2015, around 11:10, when explosion and fire occurred in G factory, four nearby vehicles and two bonds were destroyed, and farmland was contaminated, etc. (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On September 7, 2015, the Gyeonggi Police Station terminated the instant accident on the grounds that “The causes of the instant accident, such as gas leakage, cannot be discussed and the accurate cause of the fire is not confirmed.”

From July 15, 2015 to January 29, 2016, the Plaintiff paid the victims totaling KRW 11,674,300,00 according to the instant insurance contract.

E. Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is a company that leases facilities, such as liquefied petroleum gas supply and small storage tanks, to G, and Defendant C is a person who operates a gas burner installer.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 8, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's primary argument

A. On March 2014, 2014, Defendant C’s employees, who requested the Defendant Company to replace and install gas burners. The Defendant C’s employees, who actually replaced the gas burner’s electric wires, installed the gas burner’s electric wires differently from the product at the time of release.

The Defendants performed construction to prevent gas leakage at the time of replacement, and neglected this duty of care when gas leakage is leaked.

In addition, the defendant company neglected safety management such as safety inspection.

This case due to the defendants' breach of duty of care.

arrow