logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.10.16 2019나64169
구상금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 8,086,884 against the Plaintiff and its related costs from January 29, 2019 to October 16, 2020.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On September 14, 2012, the Plaintiff is a party’s position 1) the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 2nd floor and multi-family house with the first underground floor (hereinafter “instant building”) between C and C.

(E) As to the insurance period, the term of insurance is determined from September 14, 2012 to September 14, 202, 202, including the content that compensates for losses incurred to the subject matter of insurance due to a fire during the insurance period (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

(2) From November 4, 2015, the Defendant leased and used Fho Lake (hereinafter “instant housing”) among the instant buildings from C from November 4, 2015.

B. On November 17, 2018, the occurrence of the instant fire, which occurred on November 17, 2018, destroyed the washing machine and damaged the toilets due to their sound, etc.

(hereinafter “instant fire”). C.

After examining the damaged condition, etc. of the instant house, the Plaintiff calculated all repair expenses required for restoration to its original state, and calculated the amount of damages as KRW 16,173,769 (the cost of removing the remaining goods of KRW 15,109,878). The Plaintiff paid the said money to C on January 28, 2019.

【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry of Gap's evidence 1 through 9, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. 1) In the event that a lessee’s liability for return of leased object becomes impossible, the lessee is responsible to prove that the nonperformance was not due to the lessee’s cause attributable to the lessee. In the event that a leased building was destroyed by a fire and the cause of the fire is unknown, the lessee must prove that he/she fulfilled his/her duty of care to preserve the leased building (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da20422, Jun. 12, 2014). Such legal doctrine is the termination of the lease.

arrow