logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.08.31 2018나2013316
손해배상 청구의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of this case by the court of first instance is as follows: ① “Around April 13, 201,” which is the third 16th 16th th of the judgment of the court of first instance, shall be added to “Around April 13, 201,” and “Around November 23, 2010,” which is the first 17th th th 17th st st st st 17th st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st,

2. According to the evidence adopted by the first instance court on the supplement of the case, it is insufficient to find that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone was insufficient to acknowledge that the instant fire occurred in the area where the respective air conditioners are normally used, or “the area exclusively under the Defendant’s exclusive control,” and there is no other evidence.

1) The manual of air conditioners (Evidence 11) states that “In cases where the air conditioners do not normally use the air conditioners, the normal operation temperature range of air conditioners (Evidence 11),” and “in cases where the air conditioners do not normally use the air conditioners, the air conditioners may be unreasonable or proper in products (referring to air conditioners as the context requires). In particular, the manual states that “in cases where the air conditioners do not observe the normal operation range, air conditioners may be air conditioners, and the air conditioners may get out of the normal use range of air conditioners,” and that “in cases where air conditioners do not use the air conditioners less than 21§¯ 21§¯, the air conditioners may get out of the normal use range of air conditioners,” and that “in cases where air conditioners do not take part in air conditioners, air conditioners may get out of the normal use range of air conditioners 37” (Article 37). However, the manual of use, including the Plaintiff’s air condition 2008 13.3 years air condition.53 years.

arrow