logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2019.04.02 2017가단135174
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Defendant B’s KRW 28,00,000 and annual interest thereon to the Plaintiff from November 18, 2017 to April 2, 2019, respectively.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is engaged in food manufacturing business, etc. (net production) at the E plant (factory 1 Dong, factory 2 Dong, reliance Dong, and lodging Dong) located in Namyang-si, Namyang-si.

B. Around December 2014, Defendant B (FF) installed a gas boiler in the boiler room at the 1st place of the plant.

C. Upon the implementation of a government project that partially supports installation costs when replacing the said boiler with low melterer with efficiency in reducing nitrogen oxides, the Plaintiff replaced the said boiler to the gas burner manufactured by Defendant C Co., Ltd (hereinafter “C”) on April 24, 2015.

On March 29, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a G contract with Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “D”) on the same factory as the boiler installed.

The amount of indemnity covered by the items covered by the security (cost) shall be 10,00,000,000 110,000,000,000 30,000,000 20,000,000 (general, factory goods compensation) fire and fire-fighting damages, and in the event of escape damages, the maximum amount of the subscription amount by the relevant object. The indemnity for actual losses within the limit of the subscription amount by the relevant object, if any, shall be paid for the damages caused by fire. In the event of a fire, the indemnity for actual losses within 10% of the amount of damages shall be 250,00,00,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,0

E. However, around 10:50 on March 16, 2017, the boiler explosiveed and scattered the body with approximately 50 meters wide, and thus, the plant, outside and pents were destroyed.

[Evidence Gap 2, 3, 4, Eul 8-1, Eul 6, Eul 3

2. The parties' assertion

A. (i) The boiler installed by Defendant B and the gas burner replaced by Defendant C had a defect under Article 2 Subparag. 2 of the Product Liability Act. This is therefore.

arrow