beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the building No. 301 (hereinafter referred to as “301”) in Suwon-gu, Busan, and the Defendants are co-owners of the D Building No. 401 (hereinafter referred to as “401”) that is the upper floor of the above 301.
B. The Defendants leased No. 401 to E around 2010, and E operated the frequency from 401 to 7, 2016.
C. The heat generated around August 2015 caused water leakage to 301 rooms, etc. The Defendants accepted the main franchise portion of 401 around April 2016, but the water leakage occurred again, and the water leakage construction was performed in the ceiling portion of 301 around June 2016.
[Grounds for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Partial Testimony of Witness E, Purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion No. 401 is due to the Defendants’ mistake. Thus, the Defendants are obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 20 million for operating losses caused by water leakage and KRW 10 million for consolation money.
3. Determination
A. First, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above leakage was caused by the plaintiffs' mistakes.
B. Meanwhile, pursuant to Article 758 of the Civil Act, the liability for damages incurred to another person due to defects in the installation or preservation of a structure is first to the possessor of a structure, who actually occupies and manages the structure, directly and specifically, and the possessor of the structure, who does not neglect due care necessary for the prevention of damages, shall be held liable for damages second to the owner of the structure when immunity is granted by proving that the possessor of the structure did not exercise due care for the prevention of damages (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da23551, Jan. 12, 1993). In the instant case, there is no evidence to support that the Defendants are not liable for damages as the owner of the structure under Article 401, inasmuch as there is no evidence to support that E, who carried on the business at the same time, did not neglect due to leakage
4. Conclusion against the Defendants.