logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안양지원 2016.11.30 2016가단104638
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

The summary and premise of the case is the case where a construction business operator (the plaintiff) who installed a rain or facility using a defective water supply pipe to remove and reconstruct the facility and compensates for damages caused by the tort by the Product Liability Act or the general tort against the manufacturer (the defendant).

On the premise, the Plaintiff is a business entity that performs heating and cooling facilities with trade name.

On January 12, 2015, the Plaintiff contracted the construction of machinery and equipment (he heating pipes, water supply pipes, drain pipes, drain pipes, sanitary apparatus, and fire extinguishing equipment installation works) among the C Environment Improvement Works (hereinafter referred to as the “C Environment Improvement Project”) by the YW Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “stock company”).

원고는 피고가 제조판매한 급수급탕 배관용 스테인리스 강관(13mm )을 중간유통상인 명보기업㈜ 이 사건 배관은 피고 ㈜월드스틸파이프 파이프퀸 명보기업㈜ 원고 순으로 유통되었다.

purchase from them and used them in the above construction work.

(hereinafter “instant pipes”). However, at the time of completion of the construction, water leakage occurred on some parts of the pipes installed.

The Plaintiff removed all of the instant pipelines that had been buried as well as the floor and the wall part (which had been built after the reclamation of pipes, a concrete typology, and a dustproof construction work after the reclamation of pipes) and buried them, and buried new pipes.

As a result, there was damages such as the reconstruction cost and the compensation for delay against the orderer, and the plaintiff agreed to compensate for part of the damages to the orderer.

[Grounds for recognition] A.1 to 10, 12, 20-22, witness D’s testimony, and the purport of the entire pleadings by the Plaintiff, alleged by the Plaintiff, was defective in heating the pipe of this case that the Defendant manufactured and sold, and thereby, the Plaintiff suffered damages. Thus, the Defendant was around.

arrow