(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.01.23 2014나21443

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.01.23 2014나21443

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 5, 2011, the Plaintiff leased part of the KRW 20 million as lease deposit money and KRW 20 million per month of rent, from Defendant B’s lower-tier greenhouse C’s land (hereinafter “instant vinyl”) owned by Defendant B, the Plaintiff used it as a warehouse that keeps the main outlet for business use (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s warehouse”).

B. In addition, on January 15, 2009, Defendant A leased part of the instant vinyls from Defendant B and used them as a warehouse storing the interior goods, etc. of the business entity “D” operated by Defendant A (hereinafter “Defendant A’s warehouse”).

C. However, around 01:10 on May 29, 2012, a fire (hereinafter “instant fire”) occurred in the instant vinyl, and the total amount of KRW 86,025,830,00, such as kitchen equipment for business use, which was kept in the Plaintiff’s warehouse, was destroyed by fire.

As a result of the on-site investigation, the fire of this case was found to have been removed in the vicinity of the subdivision of this case (hereinafter “the subdivision of this case”) installed in the defendant A’s warehouse, and the fire was moved to the plaintiff’s warehouse. The electric wires were discovered below the subdivision of this case.

E. At the time of the instant fire, the location of the arrangement and the point of extinguishment of the instant vinyl are as follows:

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2-1 to 3, Gap evidence 5 and 10, the fact inquiry result to the subordinate chief of the fire station of the court of first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant A

A. Defendant A, the installer and custodian of the Plaintiff’s assertion of the division of this case, failed to perform the duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the risk as described in paragraphs (1) through (3). Accordingly, the fire of this case occurred.

Therefore, Defendant A suffered damages due to the Plaintiff’s defect in the installation and preservation of the subdivision of this case.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2020.01.08 2019가단76562

-서울남부지방법원 2017.11.28 2017가단211553

-의정부지방법원 2014.01.24 2013가합3542

-인천지방법원 2014.12.23 2013가합33979