logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2019.04.10 2018나53993
구상금
Text

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 9,276,264 as well as January 2018.

Reasons

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Where a lessee becomes unable to fulfill his/her duty to return an object due to the extinguishment of a fire, etc., the lessee is liable for damages incurred due to nonperformance of the duty to return the object unless the lessee proves that the nonperformance was due to a cause not attributable to himself/herself, and the same applies to cases where the specific cause of a fire, etc. is not revealed.

In addition, this legal principle also applies to cases where the return of leased object is not in an impossible condition at the time of termination of the lease, but the returned building seeks damages on the ground that it was damaged by a fire.

Meanwhile, a lessor is obligated to deliver an object to a lessee, to maintain conditions necessary for the use of, and profit from, the object while the lease is in force (Article 623 of the Civil Act). If a fire that occurred while the lease contract is in force is presumed to have occurred due to a defect existing in the area controlled and managed by the lessor, repairing and removing the defect belongs to the lessor’s duty to maintain the condition necessary for the use and profit-making of the leased object, and the lessee knew or could have known the defect in advance, barring special circumstances such as the lessee’s failure to perform the duty to return the object, the lessor cannot be held liable for damages to the lessee

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da86895, 86901 Decided May 18, 2017).

According to the fact that the defendant's liability for reimbursement was established, the fire in this case occurred within the leased building of this case, and the cause of the fire is clearly revealed.

arrow