logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.05.01 2018나54653
구상금
Text

1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The Defendants jointly do so to the Plaintiff and KRW 5,364,921.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. With respect to the building owned by D (hereinafter “instant building”), the Plaintiff entered into a non-dividend F contract (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s insurance contract”) between January 16, 2013 and January 16, 2018 with respect to the insurance period as to the building (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. Defendant B leased the fourth floor of the instant building (hereinafter “instant building part”) from D to run the health club (hereinafter “instant health club”); and Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”) entered into a non-payment H agreement with respect to the instant health club as to the instant health club from November 25, 2009 to November 25, 2016.

The above insurance contract includes a fire insurance contract on the part of the instant building (hereinafter “Defendant insurance contract”).

C. On January 15, 2014, around 00:45, a fire presumed to be an electrical factor, such as joint lines, in the instant health club (hereinafter “instant fire”). D.

The amount of damages on the instant building due to the instant fire was assessed at KRW 55,243,90.

In addition, as the total insurance amount of the original Defendant insurance contract on the instant building exceeds the insurable value, the original Defendant insurance contract constitutes double insurance. The share apportioned in proportion to the respective insurance amount of the said damages is Plaintiff 27,007,560, and Defendant C28,236,430.

E. On March 4, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 27,007,560 of the Plaintiff’s share of double insurance with the insurance money for losses incurred to the instant building. On March 21, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 28,236,430 of the share of double insurance by additionally paying KRW 28,236,430 on April 1, 2014 upon receiving a prior request from Defendant C.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-7 and 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. (1) As to the claim against Defendant B, the leased object is fire.

arrow