logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.10.18 2016나8288
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff operates a gas station in Jeonnam C (D) (hereinafter “instant gas station”), and the Defendant is a person who operates a gas station, etc. with the trade name “E”.

On December 1, 2012, 2012. The date of completion date of the construction project, which is the name of the Corporation AF head office, the contract amount of KRW 57,000,000,000, the contract amount of KRW 57,700,000, and the date of commencement of DD before the site of the construction project.

On November 28, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for replacement of three of the four oil tanks installed in the instant gas station as follows:

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction contract” and the said construction work is referred to as the “instant construction work”).

The Defendant started construction work from December 1, 2012 pursuant to the instant construction contract, and completed construction work around February 28, 2013.

However, on April 28, 2014, when water flows into the oil tank installed by the Defendant, in the instant gas station, the fuel was injected into five vehicles (Fpoter II, G straw, H low-priced, Ivoke, and J straw) which are mixed with water. Accordingly, there was damage to engines or fuel-related devices in the said vehicles.

E. Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 19,119,270 to the owner of the above five vehicles.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute; Gap evidence 1 to 5; Eul evidence 1 to 4; Eul witness's testimony; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion during the instant construction project, the Defendant constructed an oil tank facility different from the design drawings provided by the Plaintiff. As a result, the Plaintiff suffered damage from the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 19,119,270 in total of the vehicle repair cost, as alleged above, due to inflow of water into oil tanks.

Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff damages, such as the written claim, in accordance with the default liability or Product Liability Act.

(b)each of the statements in Gap evidence 1 to 5, the witness.

arrow