beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 22,466,068 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from July 18, 2018 to July 3, 2019.
Reasons
1. The facts such as the occurrence of the liability for damages (attached Form) shall not be disputed between the parties, or may be recognized by taking into account the following: Gap evidence 1-1 to 3, and evidence 3-1 to 8; Eul's testimony and appraiser D's appraisal results;
Therefore, the accident of this case is deemed to have been caused by the Defendant’s failure to take necessary measures to remove the risk of the accident even though the Defendant could have predicted the occurrence of the accident during the construction work of this case, and thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff.
2. Scope of liability for damages
A. With respect to the claim for damages equivalent to the cost of facility construction and the cost of housework equivalent thereto, if the accident in this case causes inundation or damage to the facilities, such as the ceiling and floor of reinforcement, etc., installed at the Plaintiff’s workplace, and the cost of housework, such as table equipment, etc., the damages equivalent to KRW 21,539,789, including temporary installation, removal, metal, water and electricity, and KRW 926,279, and the cost of housework, etc., may be acknowledged either by dispute between the parties, or by taking into account the whole purport of arguments as a result of appraiser D’
In regard to this, the Defendant asserts that the construction cost is excessive by calculating the floor area to be replaced due to the instant accident as 416 square meters equivalent to 77% of the entire site area of the building, but the appraisal method of the appraiser is against the rule of experience or unreasonable. However, the above assertion is rejected as long as the appraiser’s appraisal method violates the rule of experience or is not reasonable.
B. (1) With respect to the claim for damages equivalent to operating losses, the Plaintiff is the cause of the claim in this part, and the Plaintiff was unable to carry on the party room and the table room business during that period due to the instant accident, thereby resulting in the Plaintiff’s corresponding operating loss 19,979,046.