In a case where Gap-owned building was leaked due to a sewerage pipeline defect of Eul-owned building, and there was a ice plate at the close building of Eul-owned building, and Eul was killed due to injuries caused by ice ice shield and received treatment, the case holding that Gap is liable for compensation for the damage caused by death since Gap exceeded Eul

In a case where Gap-owned building was leaked due to the defects of the sewage pipeline of Eul-owned building, and there was a ice plate to the close building of Eul-owned building, and the injury was caused and the injury was caused, the case holding that Gap is liable to compensate for the damage caused by the death of Eul-owned building since Gap has a duty of care to repair the sewage pipe and not to generate ice plates, on the ground that water leakage occurs in the sewerage pipeline installed in the building, and there is a concern that neighboring residents might go out of ice plates, even though Eul has a duty of care to repair the sewage pipe and not to generate ice plates, Eul neglected the sewage pipe from the ice board generated from the water leakage generated from the sewage pipeline, resulting in the death of Eul-owned after being treated.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm Cheong, Attorney Lee In-bok, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

September 29, 2016

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 9,601,872 won, 6,401,248 won, and each of them shall be 5% per annum from May 6, 2015 to October 27, 2016, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims against the defendant are dismissed.

3. 5/6 of the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiffs, and 1/6 are assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 39,004,680 won, 26,003,120 won, and 5% per annum from December 24, 2014 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Grounds for liability

1) Facts of recognition

A) The Non-Party (Plaintiff, Nov. 14, 1940), together with Plaintiff 1, the wife, had resided in the accommodation business in Dongjak-gu Seoul ( Address 1 omitted) that is jointly owned by the Plaintiffs. From October 201, the Non-Party (Plaintiff 1) has been able to enjoy daily sewage due to the defect in the sewerage pipeline of the building near ( Address 2 omitted).

B) Accordingly, the Plaintiff 1 et al. demanded the repair of the defects of the sewerage pipeline on several occasions to the Defendant, the owner of the said land and building, and sent it by content-certified mail, but the Defendant did not perform the defect repair work.

C) The Plaintiffs and the Nonparty suffered inconvenience due to the leakage of water from the said sewage, which caused a ice dysing down to the end of the building owned by the Plaintiffs, and the Plaintiffs and the Nonparty suffered from a sudden and marith, and the Nonparty suffered from the injury caused by the ice dystrophed (L1) of the math on December 24, 2014. The Nonparty died on the part of the Non-Party, she was under an anti-emergency treatment, such as an overcoming dystroph for the prevention of dystrophe, due to the dystrophism of the cardiopulmonary East East-dong disease; however, as seen above, she was unable to properly treat the dystrophe while taking the dystrophe at the same time, and accordingly, died on January 22, 2015, due to the dystrophe and mal dymosis, etc.

D) Plaintiff 1 is the Nonparty’s wife, and Plaintiff 2 is his father.

[Based on recognition] Each description and image of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, 10, 11, 14 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2) Determination

According to the above facts, the defendant, the owner of the above ( Address 2 omitted) building, is likely to cause water leakage in a sewerage pipeline installed in the building, and there is a concern for neighboring residents to go beyond the ice. Thus, even though there is a duty of due care to repair the sewage pipe generated from water leakage and not to generate ice from water leakage, the defendant neglected the sewage pipeline generated from water leakage generated from the sewerage pipeline as it was in violation of such duty of care and caused the death of the non-party to receive medical treatment. As such, the non-party is liable to compensate for the damage caused by the death of the non-party after being in excess of the non-party 1).

B. Limitation on liability

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the evidence admitted earlier, the Nonparty was recommended to be hospitalized in the ○○○ Military Department on December 24, 2014, and refused to receive hospital treatment until January 19, 2015. The Nonparty contributed to the Nonparty’s duty of care to prevent the death of the Nonparty, including the Nonparty’s age, by taking account of the following: (a) the Nonparty’s failure to receive an appropriate anti-emergency treatment for the prevention of strokee from strokeecing; (b) the Nonparty died while receiving a brain strokee examination; and (c) the Nonparty was suffering from strokee ice strokeeing in the strokee; and (d) the Nonparty took measures to prevent strokee from spreading the sand on the strokee strokee, or by taking measures to prevent the death of the strokee strokee from exceeding the Defendant’s duty of care for damages due to the Nonparty’s death.

2. Scope of liability for damages

(a) Medical expenses: 10,007,800 won (Evidence 12-1, 2, 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings);

(b) Funeral expenses: 5,00,000 won (the evidence No. 13 of the A, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments).

(c) Limitation on liability: 6,003,120 won [15,007,80 won = 10,007,800 won + 5,000,000 won] x 0.4 (Defendant’s ratio of liability];

D. Consolation money: 10,000,000 won (the age, family relationship, the Nonparty’s king and reason for death, the Defendant’s act contributed to the occurrence of damages and the scope of damages). Meanwhile, the Plaintiffs claimed consolation money of the Nonparty, and the Plaintiffs did not separately claim consolation money of the Nonparty)

(e) Inheritance;

1) Plaintiff 1: 9,601,872 won [=16,03,120 won + 10,120 won + 10,000,000 won] x 3/5];

2) Plaintiff 2: 6,401,248 won [=16,03,120 won + 10,120 won + 10,000,000 won] x 2/5];

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to claim damages against the plaintiff 1 for damages by the rate of 9,601,872 won, 6,401,248 won, and 5% per annum under the Civil Act from May 6, 2015, which is the date the non-party's death, until October 27, 2016, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant against the defendant is justified within the extent of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Eduk Jin-jin

Note 1) The instant judgment is proceeding in the state where the original litigation document was served by public notice. However, the order to serve by public notice was revoked on the third date for pleading, and a duplicate of the complaint was served twice on the Defendant (a more served upon the Defendant’s request). The Defendant did not submit a written reply, etc., stating the content of the Plaintiff’s dispute over the cause of the claim, and did not appear on the date for pleading.