2010Na10808 Compensation (as such)

door-○ (63 years old, south)

Sungnam-si

◇ 주식회사

Seoul Jongno-gu

Representative Director KimO

소송대리인 법무법인 ★★

Attorney Lee O-O, NaO

Suwon District Court Decision 2009Gauri53904 Decided February 11, 2010

August 2010 8.20

October 29, 2010

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

In the first place, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 19, 699, 670 won and all of its payment from August 27, 2009.

Until the date of 20% per annum, 20% interest per annum shall be paid, as preliminary, to the plaintiff.

18,000,000 won, and 20% per annum from August 27, 2009 to the date of full payment.

d. Payment of money:

2. Purport of appeal

The order is as set forth in the text.

1. Basic facts

The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or evidence A, Nos. 1 to 5, and No. 10, 11,

The statements in Eul-B 1 and 2 may be recognized by integrating the purpose of the whole pleadings.

A. The Plaintiff leased one story underground of the commercial building in Sungnam-si (hereinafter referred to as the “instant store”). It is located therein.

서 ' ★★슈퍼 ' 라는 상호로 슈퍼마켓을 운영하던 중 , 2007 . 7 . 6 . 주식회사 ( 이하

'Fire'. Between the above store and the insurance period of July 6, 2007: 00 to 2010 for the above store.

6. 6. 16: up to 00: facilities 40,00,00, 100, 100, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, buildings

60 The insurance of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "the insurance of this case") consisting of non-distribution professional flazzz., 000,000 won

"Contract" was entered into.

B. On November 20, 2007, the Plaintiff was fire and marine insurance company (hereinafter “fire”) and the company

Accordingly, with respect to the above store, the insurance amount from November 20, 2007 to November 20, 2012, as to the above store.

No dividends of 50,00,000 won, - Equipment 10,000, 000, 100, movable property 100,000, 000, 000, 000 won; and

The actual contents of this paper were entered into a license insurance contract.

C. On December 18, 2007: A fire that could not be found inside the store of this case on December 12, 2007

The facilities, movables, buildings, etc. which are the subject matter of insurance were destroyed.

D. 1) The defendant who is a damage adjusting business operator is requested to make a fire damage adjustment and on December 21, 2007.

The cause of reconsideration is presumed to be a fire after the cash cutting of the deceased and the subsequent additional investigation is conducted.

The on-site investigation report prepared with the content of the plan to proceed was submitted to the fire.

2) On January 31, 2009, the Defendant: (a) whether the store was under the follow-up time for the store; and (b) the rapid decrease in the sales of the store.

Fire accidents have occurred in a small state, and fire in a state where the plaintiff has a considerable debt.

The accident occurred, the plaintiff knew of the fire accident and intentionally appeared at the scene of the fire;

The discovery of cigarette butts used by the plaintiff at the place of combustion, etc., and concealing the subscription to additional insurance.

It is doubtful that the plaintiff's fire prevention potential is doubtful on the grounds that the plaintiff made a false statement on assets held.

on the other hand, a third party's fire possibility may not be ruled out.

The reports were submitted.

3) The defendant maintained his opinion on January 2, 2009 on the interim report as to the cause of a fire accident.

The plaintiff submitted a statement to the fire, which is the basis for the possibility of fire prevention of the plaintiff.

It is excluded that the plaintiff made a false statement on the holding assets.

E. 1) Fire No. 2008Gahap41418 against the Plaintiff on April 30, 2008

As to the fire accident of this case, there is an obligation of the plaintiff to pay insurance money under the insurance contract of this case.

action to confirm the existence of the obligation, and the defendant as a counterclaim to this effect.

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008Gahap100607

B. The above court dismissed the principal claim on February 5, 2009, and applied for fire.

insurance money, 43, 190, 861 won and damages for delay shall be ordered to pay the remainder of the counterclaim.

The claim was pronounced a judgment dismissing the claim.

2) As to the above judgment, Seoul High Court 2009Na31712 (principal lawsuit), 2009 Ghana

In a case where an appeal was filed under the title of 31729 (Counterclaim), the said fire was modified by the first instance judgment on August 27, 2009.

The plaintiff's obligation to pay insurance money based on the insurance contract of this case is 39, 892, 492 won, and

It is confirmed that there is no excess of the scope of the damages for delay, and the fire is replaced by fire.

order the Plaintiff to pay the above amount, and dismiss the remainder of the principal lawsuit and counterclaims

was sentenced and finalized as it is.

2. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion

A. The assertion

The plaintiff's losses are suspected to have been destroyed by the plaintiff without any false basis.

The fire that requested damage assessment shall be paid to the plaintiff by the act of sea-assessment, etc.

In doing so, a lawsuit to confirm the existence of an obligation to deny the payment of insurance proceeds has been filed.

1, 623, 600 won, inventory of goods, paid by the Plaintiff as a fee for the storage of the goods in bulk.

and 1,000,000 2,623,600 , and 600 , paid as investigation expenses to ascertain the amount of damage

39, 892, and 492 won at the rate of 7.5% per annum from January 18, 2008 to February 5, 2009

damages for delay and damages for delay, and damages equivalent to 6,600,000 won in favor of the attorney

In addition, since the defendant suffered from mental suffering, the defendant suffered from the above property damage and the person who suffered from the mental suffering around the other hand.

A total of 19, 699, 670 won, 18, 000 won for solatium in preliminary cases, and 18,000 won for solatium in preliminary cases.

I asserts.

B. Determination

1) Each entry of Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 6-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 11, and Eul evidence 2

According to the defendant's interim report, the items concerning "the plaintiff made a false statement on the holding assets."

In this part, the Plaintiff did not own a motor vehicle, unlike its statement, and the Plaintiff signed the workplace by door ○○.

It was investigated that a dependent of the National Health Insurance is unable to carry out business registration in his name.

on the other hand, the business registration of the store of this case is registered in the name of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff

(a) The owner of a small cargo vehicle with 90 Radton and the head of a household are insured for national health insurance.

may be recognized.

However, in full view of all the evidence mentioned above, the entrance of the store of this case can be seen as the whole.

It is only two grams in front and rear door, and because of underground space, it is possible to enter Schlages within the range through windows.

The fact that there is no structure, at the time of the fire accident, the door gate was issued, and the entrance to the after door was made.

The key of the store was opened without being damaged, and the key of the store is the birth of the plaintiff and the plaintiff.

The key to the post is easy and immediately after the plaintiff opened the shop.

The monthly sales of July 2007 were KRW 69, 696, 750, but was immediately before the instant fire accident, - 12, 2007, which was immediately before the instant fire accident.

The monthly sales amount of 22, 362, 000 won was exceeded, and the plaintiff had already been fire and the show of this case.

without giving notice of a fire or fire under the contract of examination;

A fire insurance contract was entered into with regard to the enemy, and the fire accident of this case was the fire accident.

The facts arising at the time when one month has not elapsed, as above, can be acknowledged.

There is a majority of the circumstances to suspect that the fire accident of this case was caused by the internal fire.

In addition, the defendant is also based on the possibility of fire prevention by the plaintiff and the defendant.

the Plaintiff made a false statement on the holder’s identity in the final report submitted to the fire;

Items of this chapter were excluded by the Defendant, and in the field report, interim report, and damage assessment report, the Plaintiff’s side was excluded.

In light of the fact that the possibility of fire prevention by a third party is continuously pointed out, it shall be reported to the intermediate report.

Gap evidence No. 6-4 and No. 12 shall be written on the basis that there is a false investigation, or only the entry in Gap evidence No. 12

without any basis due to the Defendant’s intentional concealment of the truth or false damage evaluation;

It is difficult to see that it engaged in a false damage assessment business suspected of intentional fire prevention, and otherwise;

There is no evidence to prove this point.

2) Even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, it shall be included in the damages or fire insurance proceeds due to a fire accident.

charge for the use of warehouse, investigation expenses are related to the defendant's damage assessment, etc.

that is not a loss.

Damages or damages for delay exceeding the extent recognized in the above final judgment between the Plaintiff and fire

Attorney's fee equivalent to the winning fee paid after performing the above-mentioned lawsuit (the plaintiff is fire and death)

(1) The portion exceeding 2,405,050 won of the costs of lawsuit finalized after the final procedure for the filing of the objection

I seem to seek compensation.) There is a substantial causal relationship between the defendant's act and the other party's act.

It is difficult to regard it as damage.

(1) If the plaintiff is eligible to receive property compensation due to the defendant's damage compensation, etc.

there is no evidence to deem that there was a special circumstance to deem that there was an unrecoverable mental suffering.

In this respect, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s claim for damages.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims of this case are dismissed as they are without merit, and No. 1

The judgment of the court below is unfair on the contrary of its conclusion, and thus it is revoked and its main and conjunctive.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

The mediation of judges of the presiding judge

Judges Kim Young-young

Judges Kim Jae-chul