logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.06.01 2016나55322
구상금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 2010, the Defendant carried out a structural change project (hereinafter “instant structural change project”) to replace one of the engines owned by the said Company with an electrical operating engine between Pakistan Co., Ltd. (B; hereinafter “instant Poke”) (hereinafter “instant Poke”).

B. On June 10, 2015, a fire on the ground of the cause occurred to the instant guard (hereinafter “instant fire”), which led to the said guard’s discharge.

C. The Plaintiff was an insurance company that entered into an insurance contract with Pakistan, Inc., and paid KRW 55,49,679 for the insurance proceeds from the instant fire to the said company.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, each entry and video (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant filed a claim for damages due to nonperformance of the duty to implement the instant structural change and then delivered the instant fire to Pakistan. The Plaintiff, the owner of the instant construction, was a person who paid insurance money to Pakistan for the instant construction, on behalf of the Defendant, on behalf of the Defendant on behalf of the Defendant, filed a claim for damages compensation of KRW 55,49,679 due to the instant fire that occurred due to the Defendant’s nonperformance of the duty to compensate for damages, and the damages therefrom. (2) The Defendant, upon the periodic inspection after the instant structural change, notified the Pakistan, through a periodic inspection, of the stability of the instant construction, and neglected to give warning on the risks, and neglected to do so. (2) The Plaintiff is a person who paid insurance money for the instant construction, the owner of the instant construction, and sought compensation for damages of KRW 55,49,679 due to the instant fire.

arrow