logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2016.05.12 2015가합106630
구상금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

Reasons

1. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff’s cause of claim 1) The Plaintiff is a company running insurance business, etc., and the Defendant is a company running the water purifier manufacturing and sales business, etc., and A is the first floor store in Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant store”).

(C) The Plaintiff is a person who runs the business of “C” in the name of “C.” The Plaintiff is a fire insurance contract between May 9, 2012 and May 9, 202 with respect to the instant store, etc. (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

(2) On February 27, 2014, at the instant store, a fire (hereinafter “instant fire”) occurred on or around 22:43, and the instant fire resulted in property damage over the entire building.

Accordingly, according to the insurance contract of this case, the Plaintiff paid total of KRW 291,935,576 to the insurer, etc. who acquired the right to indemnity on behalf of the victim and the victim of the fire.

3) The air conditioners manufactured by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant air conditioners”)

Since the fire of this case occurred due to the defect of this case, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff who acquired the subrogation of the right to claim damages the amount of money equivalent to the above insurance money and delay damages.

B. There is no evidence to prove that the Defendant manufactured the cold and hot water apparatus of this case, and rather according to the purport of the entry of Eul evidence No. 1 and the entire arguments, it appears that the cold and hot water apparatus of this case was manufactured by other manufacturers than the Defendant.

Therefore, the prior plaintiff's assertion is without merit on the opposite premise.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is decided as per Disposition by applying the former part of Article 99 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs in light of all the circumstances revealed in the proceedings of the case.

arrow