logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.10 2014가단5280441
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 394,650 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from July 8, 2014 to November 10, 2015.

Reasons

1. In full view of the statements in Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 7, and 13 through 17 (including branch numbers) and the purport of the entire pleadings in Eul's testimony, the plaintiff is the occupant of Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City D shop D shop (hereinafter "instant commercial building") No. 112; the defendant is the occupant of 113 attached to the above 112; on May 29, 2014, the sewage from the sewage mouth No. 113 and the above 112 had been flowed through the walls installed between the above 113 and 112; on September 8, 2011, Sep. 14, 2011; on March 6, 2014; on May 13, 2014; on May 2014; on May 24, 2014; on May 2014; on May 28, 2014, the plaintiff suffered from inundation damages.

Meanwhile, according to the overall purport of arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, and 19, and witness C and F's testimony, the Defendant's water consumption at the time of the flood accident of this case is an appropriate level at the time of the flood accident of this case, and the Defendant's water consumption at around June 8, 2014 after the construction of the daily sewage pipe No. 111-1 of the commercial building of this case, it is recognized that the flood accident of this case occurred any more than the flood accident of the above 112, and it is not deemed that the Defendant's sewage flow at the sewage outlet No. 113 possessed by the Defendant does not

However, since the sewage from the sewage plant referred to in the above 113 had been discharged several times before the last flood accident, the defendant has a duty of care to prevent it in advance, such as setting up a threshold to prevent the drained sewage from flowing into the above 113, and therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the flood accident in this case occurred due to the defendant's negligence.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for all damages suffered by the defendant due to the flood accident of this case.

2...

arrow