logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.09.18 2014나2047441
구상금
Text

1. Of the part on Defendant Cathere Co., Ltd. in the judgment of the first instance, the payment order is given next to the following.

Reasons

1. The grounds for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts and the allegations by the parties are the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim against the defendant's damage to the defendant's damage to the sea.

A. The lessee of the relevant legal doctrine bears the duty of due care as a good manager for the preservation of the leased building, and if the lessee is exempted from liability for damages due to nonperformance of the lessee’s obligation to return the leased building, the lessee is responsible to prove that the nonperformance is not due to the lessee’s fault.

However, even if it is found that there is a cause of a lessor’s breach of the duty to preserve the leased object in a state necessary for the lessee to use and benefit from it, it is not possible to exempt the lessee from the liability even if the lessee proves that the lessee has fulfilled his/her duty to preserve the object separately.

Therefore, where a fire is destroyed due to a fire while a house, other building, or a part of a building or a building is occupied and used by a lessor upon delivery, if the fire is presumed to have occurred due to a defect existing in the area controlled and managed by a lessor, such as the electrical ship, which forms a part of the building structure, the lessor’s duty to repair and remove the defect belongs to the lessor’s duty to maintain the state necessary for the use and profit-making of the leased object. Thus, the lessee cannot be held liable for damages for nonperformance, etc. of the duty to return the object due to the fire.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da13170 Decided May 28, 2009). However, if a lessee fails to actively prove that he/she has fulfilled his/her duty of care as a good manager with respect to the preservation of a leased building, the disadvantage should ultimately be borne by the lessee, and such a fire shall also be borne by the lessee.

arrow