beta
Text
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. According to the expansion of the purport of the claim in the appellate trial, the plaintiff A shall be additionally added.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is 3.0 out of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance.
The main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act cites this part, as it is, on the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, except the following cases.
The summary is that as to the plaintiffs' damages caused by the instant fire that occurred on April 14, 2016, Defendant E is liable for tort due to early detection and extinguishment of the fire, Defendant D is liable for the employer as Defendant E’s employer, and Defendant C, who entered into the liability insurance contract with Defendant D, bears the obligation to pay the insurance money.
2. Parts to be dried;
C. 1) The scope of damages that the Plaintiffs may claim in accordance with the facts established based on the premise that the instant fire constituted a total of KRW 402,037,115 won for the instant building, Hmaart house, facility, movable property, etc., and the Plaintiffs were partly paid out of K, who is the insurer of the Plaintiff, but the amount of damages equivalent to KRW 87,08,012 for the instant building owned by the Plaintiff and the total of KRW 46,570,821 for Hmaart’s facilities and equipment operated by the Plaintiffs was not compensated.
B) In addition, comprehensively taking account of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 7, the plaintiffs were unable to operate HE for 40 days due to the fire of this case, and the net business profit per day of HE is estimated to be KRW 893,370. Therefore, the amount of losses of the plaintiffs' business losses due to the fire of this case is calculated to be KRW 35,734,788 (=893,370 x 40 days) (=128,240,500 for the plaintiff's losses of this case's building of this case's 87,08,008,012 (= KRW 46,570,821, KRW 35,734,788)/2,500 for the plaintiff's losses of this case's building of this case.