logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원여주지원 2019.05.15 2017가합7025
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The rehabilitation claim against Plaintiff A, Inc., shall be 85,852,798 won, and the rehabilitation claim against Plaintiff B.

Reasons

Facts of recognition

Plaintiff B is the owner of the F Ground Building (hereinafter “instant building”) in Echeon-si, and Plaintiff A is a person who leases the instant building and operates a manufacturer with the trade name “G”.

A debtor corporation D (hereinafter referred to as "D") manufactured coffees from the I ground building (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant factory building") of Ischeon-si as a company that manufactures and sells coffees with the trade name "H".

D filed an application for commencement of rehabilitation proceedings in Seoul Rehabilitation Court on December 6, 2018, the Seoul Rehabilitation Court decided to commence rehabilitation proceedings (Seoul Rehabilitation Court 2018 Gahap 100145).

Since then, on February 15, 2019, Defendant D’s receiver E (hereinafter “Defendant trustee”) took over the status of D in the instant lawsuit pending.

On March 18, 2019, the Plaintiffs reported the damage claim based on the tort and the damages for delay thereof as rehabilitation claims in the rehabilitation procedure, and the Defendant’s administrator raised an objection against the above claims.

D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”) concluded an insurance contract (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with Defendant C Co., Ltd. on the condition that the Defendant’s factory building, its internal office fixtures, machinery, etc. as the subject matter of insurance.

The insurance contract of this case includes a special contract for fire liability security, which provides that if a fire, which occurred for the purpose of insurance, causes damage to another person's property, the person shall be legally liable, and compensates the damage within the limit of 300

A fire at around 17:04 on April 26, 2017 (hereinafter “instant fire”) occurred around the bottom of the floor of the outer stairs of the Defendant’s factory building, and the Defendant’s factory building, the instant building, and its inner machinery, etc. were destroyed by the instant fire.

The fire station in this case was investigated. "Defendant."

arrow