logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 안양지원 2018.01.17 2016가단103772
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Defendant B, Large-Scale Management Co., Ltd., and C, jointly with the Plaintiff, KRW 23,522,452, and the Plaintiff’s share on January 8, 2016.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff operated a coffee shop (hereinafter "the instant store") with the trade name "F" as referred to in subparagraphs 111 and 112 of the 1st floor of the building in the Gu E-gu (hereinafter "the instant building") in Ansan-si. The defendant B, the owner of the instant building 204, and the defendant Dae-Gyeong General Management Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "the defendant company"), the company responsible for the management, etc. of the instant building; the defendant C, the employee of the defendant company, the head of the management office of the instant building, the defendant corporation D (hereinafter "the defendant bank") leased the building 204 from the defendant company to operate his business.

On January 8, 2016, the first water leakage occurred due to the corrosion of pipes connected to the spinler installed inside the ceiling of the instant building 204.

Accordingly, the Defendant bank requested the Management Office of the instant building for remuneration by knowing the fact, and the Defendant C visited the site to verify the location of water leakage, and completed the repair work, such as replacing piping around 14:00 on the same day.

However, around 18:40 on January 8, 2016, water leakage occurred again in pipes that completed repair works as above, and water leakage occurred through the floor of 204 above, and the flood accident (hereinafter “instant accident”) occurred through the ceiling of the instant store located on the next floor.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Gap evidence 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. (1) According to the facts of recognition as above, it is reasonable to deem that the instant accident was attributable to Defendant C’s failure to exercise his duty of care, such as taking necessary measures to prevent the recurrence of water leakage in the course of performing the repair work for the first leakage of water under the above 204. As such, Defendant C is liable to compensate for damages caused by the instant accident pursuant to Article 750 of the Civil Act, and is the employer of Defendant C.

arrow