logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.12.15 2016나58726
손해배상(기)
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.

Reasons

1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is the same as the part concerning the facts acknowledged under Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it shall accept it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The court's explanation on this part of the damages incurred to the leased portion of this case is identical to the description on the occurrence of the liability for damages under Article 2 of the Reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. 1) Damage incurred to the third floor of the instant building (hereinafter “the third floor of the instant building”) is a part of the building owned by a lessor, which was destroyed by fire in the leased and used part of the building owned by a lessor and was not leased (hereinafter “non-leased part”).

(2) In the event that a lessor suffers property damage due to the nonperformance of the duty of preservation and management, if the lessee proves that the lessee breached the contractual duty of the lessee related to the occurrence of a fire, such as providing the cause of the fire, and there is proximate causation between such breach of duty and the damage to the non-leased premises, and where the damage to the non-leased premises constitutes ordinary damages due to such breach of duty, or where the lessee could be deemed to fall under damage due to special circumstances that the lessee knew or could have known such circumstances, the lessee is liable to compensate the lessor for the damage to the non-leased premises pursuant to Articles 390 and 393 of the Civil Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da86895, May 18, 2017).

arrow