logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.15 2015가단5306289
구상금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. (1) On November 18, 201, the Plaintiff entered into a fire insurance contract with A with respect to movable property, facilities, property, etc. within a “C” store, a sales store located in Scheon-si B (hereinafter “instant store”).

(2) The defendant is a company that imports and sells domestically the well-known trademark "ZENUS" manufactured in China.

B. (1) On September 20, 2012, around 00:50, the occurrence of the instant fire, etc.: (a) a fire, which was presumed to have been destroyed by the wind equipment located in the instant store (hereinafter “instant wind equipment”) and was destroyed by a fire that was destroyed to the next shop on board the fire, etc. inside the store (hereinafter “instant fire”).

(2) According to the police’s appraisal request, the National Science Investigation Research Institute assessed the instant vessel climate to the effect that “it is not clearly identified whether it is related to the power source from the wind pole, but the electric melting cycle is distinguished from the inner distribution line connected to the wind gear from the code of the power source, and such electrical melting point is difficult to be formed by an access to external flame, and thus, there is a possibility of an outbreak by the electrical sponsing point of the internal power source connected to the other machine.”

C. Under the foregoing insurance contract, the Plaintiff paid KRW 58,350,600,000 to A on November 8, 2012, and KRW 20,000,000 on December 4, 2012 in lieu of the owner of the instant store; KRW 7,892,460 on December 3, 2012; KRW 270,000 on December 14, 2012; and KRW 58,350,60 on February 14, 2013, respectively, to E who is the owner of the instant store; and KRW 140 on December 14, 2013.

【Partial grounds for recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s evidence 1 through 8, Gap’s evidence 10-31, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and the Defendant’s counterclaim, and the instant fire, imported and sold by the Defendant.

arrow