beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked, and
Reasons
Basic Facts
The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the modification as specified below of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this Court’s explanation is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, including the list and
▣ 제1심판결문 제3면 제1, 2항의 ‘피고 D’를 ‘제1심 공동피고 D’로 고친다.
▣ 제1심판결문 제5면 제1항부터 제4항까지(박스 부분 제외)를 삭제한다.
The gist of the plaintiffs' claims was that the fire of this case occurred due to the defects in the building, electric facilities, or the prompt installation or preservation of the workplace in the prompt workplace of this case.
Therefore, pursuant to the main sentence of Article 758(1) of the Civil Act, the Defendant, who is the possessor of the workplace as soon as in the instant case, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff and B a delay damages for each of the said money (i.e., KRW 25,182,114, KRW 10,000, KRW 164,986,400, KRW 154,986,400, KRW 100,000, KRW 154,986,400, KRW 100,000, KRW 10,000) and KRW 154,986,
The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is that the fire occurred at the prompt workplace of this case, but the cause of fire is unclear, so it is difficult to recognize not only the existence of defects in the installation or preservation but also the causal relationship between such defects and the occurrence of the fire of this case.
Even if the Defendant’s liability for damages is recognized, it is sought to reduce the amount of damages by the Defendants pursuant to Article 3 of the Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by Negligence (hereinafter “the Act”).
Whether the fire in this case occurred due to the defect in the installation or preservation of the fire in this part of the court is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (section 7, 3, and 8, 9). Thus, this part of the judgment is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The fire of this case is due to the defect in installation or preservation.