logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2019.09.03 2018나67193
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. The reasons for this part of the facts of recognition are as follows: Each “Defendant D” of the 2th 15, 2th 19, 3th 4, and 3th 11 of the judgment of the first instance are as follows: each “Defendant C” of the 2nd 15th 15, 3rd 11; each “Defendant C” of the 3rd 3rd 3rd 1257.75mm2; “1257m2” is as “1257.7m2”; “the ownership of the deceased A (hereinafter “the deceased”)” of “the use of the 3rd 7th 7th 1982 m2.15, and “the building of this case” of the 3rd 8th m 3rd 8th m2018,” and “the pertinent part of the judgment of the first 3rd 2018m27510” is as follows.

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that, while the Defendant carried in and stored non-business wastes in a place, other than the storage facilities, in violation of the relevant statutes, such as the Wastes Control Act, in excess of the permissible storage quantity, the Defendant neglected to perform his/her duty of care to prevent the occurrence of a fire, and thus, the fire in this case occurred. As such, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a tort under Article 750 of the Civil Act or a structure occupant under Article 758 of the Civil Act. Since it is practically impossible to repair the instant house, the damages suffered by the Plaintiff

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the above KRW 123,00,000 as damages and damages for delay.

3. Determination

A. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is that the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 4th to 5th 9th ) is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 4th 19 to 5th 9th ), and thus, this part is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except where each of the “Defendant D” is deemed to be “Defendant”.

(b).

arrow