logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2019.11.26 2017가단231323
채무부존재확인
Text

1. With respect to any accident described in the attached Table 1, the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) based on the insurance contract of the attached Table 2.

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in combination with the whole purport of the pleadings on each description and image of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 8, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 6 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply):

The Defendant is a resident living in the Dadong-dong, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and the Plaintiff entered into a business compensation insurance contract (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with the council of occupants’ representatives of the instant apartment on December 12, 2016, which guarantees liability for a facility manager as shown in the attached Table 2 (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

B. On January 30, 2017, as indicated in the separate sheet No. 1, the Defendant suffered an injury, such as Chumping, etc., due to the occurrence of an accident in which the Defendant, as indicated in the separate sheet No. 1, was getting out of the external stairs located in front of the common sense of co-ownership, 3,4 Ra of the instant apartment building (hereinafter “instant stairs”).

C. Meanwhile, in the accident area prior to the instant accident, snowed.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the accident of this case occurred due to defective facilities management, such as snow removal works, the defendant demanded the payment of insurance proceeds based on the insurance contract of this case. However, although the snow removal works were sufficiently conducted at the time, and the center of the stairs of this case (hereinafter referred to as "art") was sub-speaked, the defendant took out the stairs exposed to the outside of the set, and the accident of this case was entirely caused by the plaintiff's negligence in apartment facilities management, not due to the plaintiff's negligence.

Therefore, there is no obligation of the plaintiff to pay insurance money to the defendant.

B. At the time of the instant accident, the Defendant’s assertion that the width of each set set up in the center of the stairs was narrow, thereby getting out the stairs together with her husband.

arrow