logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2020.05.08 2019나49007
구상금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On August 11, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract with C, the insured, and the insurance period from August 11, 2017 to August 11, 2020, including the entire building located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu (hereinafter “instant building”) that covers damage caused by fire.

B. On October 24, 2017, F entered into a lease agreement with G, the owner of the instant building, and part of the first floor of the instant building. On November 10, 2017, F, upon delivery of the leased part, operated a restaurant with the trade name “H” (hereinafter “instant restaurant”).

C. On December 12, 2017, F entered into an insurance contract with the Defendant and the insured F, the insurance period from December 12, 2017 to December 12, 2022, with the subject matter insured as the instant restaurant. D.

However, around 17:50 on December 12, 2017, a fire (hereinafter “instant fire”) occurred in the instant restaurant, and the simple storage, etc. located behind the instant restaurant was destroyed.

E. According to the insurance contract concluded with C on May 23, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,518,034 to F (a direct repair of the instant restaurant part and delegation from G for the receipt of insurance premium for the pertinent part) with the insurance proceeds from the instant fire.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant fire occurred due to the combination of electrical ships passing through the wall of the instant restaurant, which belongs to the lessee’s management area. Thus, as long as F, the lessee, does not prove that he/she fulfilled his/her duty to preserve the leased object, he/she is liable to compensate for damages arising from nonperformance of the duty to return the leased object. The Plaintiff, the lessor, (F), paid insurance money to the lessor instead of the Plaintiff, G.

arrow