logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.10.15 2019가단5196947
구상금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 49,050,920 among the Plaintiff and KRW 1,613,00 from May 26, 2018 to KRW 30,190,872.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On August 2, 2017 to August 2, 2018, the Plaintiff, other than the insurance terms and conditions of the housing fire insurance general terms and conditions, is the insurer who entered into a fire insurance contract with C Apartment, as follows: (a) the owner of each household of the insured unit of C Apartment, the council of occupants’ representatives (shared parts) / the council of occupants’ representatives (shared parts) / the insurance period from August 2, 2017 to August 2, 2018.

On December 2010, the defendant produced the electric scriptive foundation used by F, a resident of the above apartment apartment E, and produced around December 2010.

B. (1) The occurrence of a fire accident and the payment of insurance proceeds (1) occurred, 2,497,00 won and 21,139,079 won and 1,079 won and 21,139,079 won and 1,230,000 won and 5,217,068 won and h heading,383,000 won and hhobbing, such as building damages caused by a fire accident, (i) installation of irrigation facilities, (ii) installation of wood 5,217,068 and hhobing, such as electrical works, electrical works, and removal works, and (iii) the occurrence of fire-fighting equipment and other adjacent residential facilities, such as TV e-mail, 32,370,370 won, clothing, bedclothes, furniture, furniture, 230,00 won in total, 78,677,000 won and 310,000 won and 31,03131,039.

(B) The Plaintiff paid KRW 1,613,00 to the insured who suffered fire damage, KRW 30,190,872 on May 25, 2018, and KRW 15,246,415 on June 25, 2018, and paid KRW 49,050,920 on August 8, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1 through 10 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the fire of this case is defective in the grounds of the judgment below.

arrow