logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2014.05.08 2013가합3084
구상금
Text

1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 51,45,746 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from August 8, 2011 to May 8, 2014; and (b).

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 2010, the Plaintiff, a corporation established under the Fisheries Cooperatives Act and operated insurance business upon entrustment, concluded an insurance contract with C, the vessel owner of B (hereinafter “instant vessel”) and the instant vessel with respect to the insurance period from July 20, 2010 to July 19, 201.

B. C requested the Defendant, who is engaged in the repair of the instant vessel within the E-ship station located in Seopopopo City D on April 2, 2011, to repair the instant vessel, and requested the E-ship station to repair the instant vessel on the same day for repair.

C. On April 8, 2011, from around 08:00 to 15:30, the Defendant’s employees carried out, prior to the repair of the instant vessel, cutting off, and folding off the air through the outer engine room prior to the repair of the scrap.

On April 9, 2011, around 05:58, the instant fire (hereinafter referred to as “instant fire”) occurred on the instant vessel, and the captain, power generator, etc. of part of the crew room, engine room, fuel tank, engine room, etc. were destroyed, and the investigation agency determined that the cause of the instant fire cannot be known and concluded the investigation.

E. On August 8, 2011, the Plaintiff paid to C insurance money of KRW 102,911,492 (i.e., hull repair cost of KRW 53,003,992, the main engine repair cost of KRW 50,287,500 - the remaining realization amount of KRW 380,00).

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was negligent in failing to perform his duty of care to prevent fire in the course of repairing the instant vessel.

Accordingly, the Defendant failed to perform its duty to return the instant vessel to C as it is after completely finishing the repair thereof.

Therefore, the defendant shall claim damages against C.

arrow