logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.09.11 2017가단228841
구상금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer of the property comprehensive insurance that entered into with respect to Ccafeterias operated by B (hereinafter “instant store”) by setting the insurance period from September 23, 2014 to September 23, 2017.

B. Around September 2014, the Defendant, as an individual business operator operating D, installed a shock case for refined meat at the instant store (hereinafter “instant shock case”).

C. A fire (hereinafter “instant fire”) occurred at the instant store around 03:04 on August 1, 2015, around 03:04, and a building (the roof panel, reinforced glass), internal facilities (the tegrology, ducte, etc.), air conditionings (the shock cases, air conditionings, etc.), etc. were destroyed.

On the other hand, the shock part on the floor surface side of the shock rink and the 4-5 Ga joints with wires (hereinafter “the instant wires”) overlapping with each other at the bottom of the right door frame. However, as a result of the field investigation conducted immediately after the fire, multiple shocks that can be generated from the said wires were discovered, and the fire in this case appears to have been enlarged by centering on the part where the said shocks were formed.

The Plaintiff paid KRW 65,167,294 in total, including KRW 29 million on September 14, 2015, and KRW 36,167,264 on October 2, 2015, with the insurance proceeds from the instant fire, to B.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 4, 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that high electricity flows over the electric wires drawn by air conditioners, out-of-the-art electric wires and shock cases of this case, and where multiple electric wires overlap with each other, fire may occur on the part of the Plaintiff’s claim.

However, in the process of installing the said shock cases, the defendant was bound by B’s request and the air of this case combined with the air of the air of this case. The fire of this case occurred due to the excessive load, and the fire of this case to B.

arrow