(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.06.08 2017가단129315

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.06.08 2017가단129315

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 30, 2009, the Plaintiff: (a) leased the entire two floors among the buildings on the second floor C (hereinafter “the instant building”); (b) operated “D”; (c) E”; and (d) Frogate (hereinafter “Frogate”); (c) subleted the instant singing room and its equipment to G on October 23, 2012; and (d) operated the instant singing room from around that time.

B. On May 27, 2014, the fire started in the instant building 11 singlets, and the instant building was destroyed by a fire of 330 square meters, including the instant singing room.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 3

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff was liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages, on the ground that the Plaintiff, a lessor of the instant singing room, failed to perform his duty to allow the Plaintiff to use and benefit from the leased object, which led to the occurrence of a fire in the instant singing room. As a result, the Plaintiff’s entertainment room, “D” and “E,” which had been operated adjacent to the instant singing room, destroyed the Plaintiff’s abandonment of the entertainment machinery, and caused the Plaintiff to pay the repair cost.

However, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the fact that the defendant failed to perform his/her duty to allow the use of and benefit from the leased object only with the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, 5, and 6 (including each serial number), and there is no evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, according to the evidence Nos. 3 and 10 of the evidence Nos. 10, the fire cause was not accurately revealed, and even if the fire occurred in the electric ship inside the instant singke 11, the occupant of the said electric ship can only recognize the fact that the fire occurred due to the Plaintiff’s failure to perform his/her duty of care in relation to the installation or preservation of the electric ship.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원평택지원 2015.08.26 2014가합4332

-의정부지방법원 2016.11.23 2014가합56109

-의정부지방법원 2019.01.18 2018나208100

-서울북부지방법원 2019.12.17 2019나34303

-부산지방법원 2020.10.06 2019가단9114