beta
Text
Based on the Seoul Central District Court 2017Gaso5608402 decision of recommendation for execution against the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On November 24, 2016, around 03:00, a fire occurred at the “E” store in the “E” market of Boan-si C, Boan-si, C, and that fire was moved to the store, etc. located immediately adjacent to the fire.
(hereinafter “the instant fire.” The Plaintiff is the person who occupied and used the said “E” store at the time of the occurrence of the instant fire by leasing the said store from Boh-si, the owner of the said “E” store.
B. The Defendant paid KRW 10,019,873 to one of the occupants and users of the above “E” stores, and claimed that the Plaintiff has a claim for reimbursement equivalent to the said money. On March 17, 2017, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff as Seoul Central District Court 2017Gaso5608402 against the Plaintiff.
On April 3, 2017, the foregoing court rendered a decision on performance recommendation with the purport that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 10,019,873 won and the amount calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from February 22, 2017 to May 17, 2017, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment,” and the said decision on performance recommendation was finalized on June 1, 2017.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on performance recommendation”). (c)
G, one of the occupants and users of the neighboring damaged stores, filed a lawsuit against Boh-si and the Plaintiff seeking compensation for damages caused by the instant fire under the Daejeon District Court Red Branch 2017Gadan2281. The above court asserted to the effect that, although the claim against Boh-si was partially accepted on December 3, 2019, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Plaintiff was that “G” should compensate for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as the possessor of the structure (Article 758 of the Civil Act) or as the general tortfeasor (Article 750 of the Civil Act).
This case’s fire began at E stores occupied and used by the Plaintiff, and it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff had operated a large number of frigerants simultaneously in E stores and had electric studios and electric studios. However, ① electric appliances used by the Plaintiff are excessive to the extent that they cause excessive load of electricity.