logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.06.24 2016나1318
구상금
Text

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation part.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurance company that entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff’s low Pest Pesting Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”). The Defendant is the owner of the D restaurant located in Busan Jin-gu C (hereinafter “instant restaurant”). The Plaintiff is a large water tank located on the instant restaurant’s rooftop (hereinafter “instant water tank”).

B. On April 3, 2015, the instant water tank on the rooftop of the instant restaurant was parked in front of the instant restaurant (hereinafter “instant accident”), and the instant water tank was found to be located in the space between the fronter of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the wall surface of the building, and the screen and the front part of the instant vehicle were found.

C. The surface of the water in this case was not recorded in ctv, etc.

On April 29, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 637,000 in total insurance money due to the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle wheel and driver.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion occurred due to the Plaintiff’s neglect of management, which is responsible for the installation and preservation of the instant water tank. As a result, the parts of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s backboard and front panion were damaged. Therefore, the Defendant is liable for damages for tort against the entire amount of damages.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff totaling KRW 637,00 and delay damages for the damages on behalf of the Plaintiff owner of the Plaintiff vehicle.

B. It can be seen that the Defendant’s assertion damage to the front and front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle caused by the instant accident.

arrow