logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.12.22 2020가단5169002
구상금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,039,258 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from December 19, 2018 to December 22, 2020 for the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. At the time when the party's status is Ansan-gu, the party's neighborhood living facilities (1 and 2 floors) and multi-family houses (hereinafter "the building in this case") on the fourth floor of reinforced concrete C, which are the party's position are owned by Nonparty D and E. The Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract with Nonparty D with Nonparty D on the third, fourth, and rooftop floor of the building in this case with Nonparty D as the subject of insurance (hereinafter "F insurance contract in this case"). The Defendant is the lessee who leased and resides in the rooftop floor (30.08 square meters) of the building in this case.

B. On August 19, 2018, when a fire in the instant building occurred from around 5:5:0 on the part of the Defendant, when he operated and used a wind engine from around 5:0 of the new wall, a fire, which was presumed to have been overheatedd inside the above rooftop, and connected with a wind meter, was falling off the front of the rooftop. A fire accident involving partial damage to the 3:4th and fourth floors of the instant building, occurred.

(hereinafter “instant fire”). C.

As the instant fire, which caused damage to a damaged building, caused damage to property caused by fire within the insurance period, the Plaintiff paid KRW 37,598,145 to the insured to the insured within the scope of damages suffered by D on December 18, 2018.

【Legal basis for recognition】 Each description of evidence 1 through 7 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim

A. In full view of the facts acknowledged prior to the occurrence of liability for damages and the purport of the entire arguments, the Defendant was in a situation where the wind and electric boat, which the Defendant occupied and used in the instant rooftop room, did not have safety to be ordinarily equipped for its intended purpose, and when occupying and using the instant rooftop room, which is the leased object of the instant case, was a good manager.

arrow