logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.06.19 2017나57235
구상금
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 31, 2015, the Plaintiff concluded a comprehensive insurance contract (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with B that operates children’s play facilities (hereinafter “instant store”) from the 601st class of the 6th class of the building Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu Seoul.

Insurance Insurance Type non-special terms and conditions, non-special terms and conditions, such as the owner of children's play facilities (management per accident) under insurance terms and conditions of insurance 100,000 won (one accident) at the location of the subject matter of insurance, from March 31, 2015 to March 31, 2016.

B. On July 6, 2015, around 02:40 on July 6, 2015, water leakage occurred in the instant store, causing damage to the adjacent seven stores.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On April 11, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 100,000,00,000, out of total damages of KRW 100,250,00 to the victims of seven stores within the pertinent building, who suffered damage due to the instant accident, as insurance proceeds, and each of the victims of the said store given up the right to claim damages exceeding the insurance proceeds received as above.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Evidence No. 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion B around February 2015, 2015: (a) left the Defendant with the stringr location change from among the tegrative and fire-fighting facility works inside the instant store; and (b) the Defendant cut the fire-fighting pipe in the process of performing the stringr location change work and connected it; and (c) thereafter, the instant accident occurred due to the Defendant’s decline without a pressure pressure.

Therefore, the accident of this case can be said to have occurred due to the negligence of the defendant who caused the connection of the fire pipe.

arrow