logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.11.17 2017나4238
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff, as the owner of the building located in Gwangju Dong-gu, Gwangju (hereinafter “Plaintiff building”), lives in the Plaintiff’s building, and the Defendant, as the owner of the building located in Gwangju Dong-gu, Gwangju (hereinafter “Defendant building”), lives in the Defendant building.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion was caused by the fall of the roof of the defendant's building that caused the plaintiff's mental distress, such as the collapse of the retaining wall, the loss of the gathering wall, etc., the loss of property caused by flooding, etc., and mental stress. Thus, the defendant shall pay 2,50,000 won as compensation

B. Determination 1) The criteria for determining illegality as the elements for establishing tort are whether the degree of harm exceeds the generally accepted limit in social life. Determination of the criteria for acceptable limit should be made on an individual basis of specific cases, comprehensively taking into account not only the nature and degree of infringement of rights or interests generally infringed, but also the content and degree of infringement of public nature of infringement, characteristics of local environment, environmental standards secured by public law regulation, prevention or mitigation of infringement, existence of measures to avoid damage or to avoid damage, degree of difficulty, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da84608, Jan. 12, 2012).

In addition, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff suffered damages as alleged by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge such damages.

3. The plaintiff's claim of this case must be dismissed due to the lack of reasonable grounds.

The judgment of the first instance is consistent with this conclusion.

arrow