logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.09 2016가단5097100
구상금
Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the Parties or in full view of each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 8 (including paper numbers) and the entire purport of the pleadings:

On April 4, 2011, the Plaintiff concluded a fire insurance contract with C and the insured period from April 4, 2011 to April 4, 2016, with respect to the facilities located in the stores leased by C in the building D located in Jeonyang-si, Jeonyang-nam, with the insurance amounting to KRW 50,00,000, with respect to the said stores, the insurance amounting to KRW 100,000,000, with respect to the household fixtures located in the said stores, and the insurance amounting to KRW 100,00,000, with respect to the movable property located in the said stores.

(hereinafter the above fire insurance is referred to as “instant fire insurance”). B.

On August 22, 2013, the fire occurred in the “E” store (hereinafter “instant store”) located adjacent to the insured C of the fire insurance of the instant case among D’s buildings located adjacent to the Mayang-si, Jeonyang-si, 11:30 on August 22, 2013, and damaged C’s facilities, fixtures, fixtures, and movables.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant fire”) C.

The survey of the fire site of this case concluded that the cause of the fire of this case occurred from the electric wires installed inside the building due to lightning, and the electric shock occurred, and that it is presumed that the electric wires were emitted from the electric wires. The National Science Investigation Institute concluded that the electric wires located inside the wall connected to the Contact in this case should be deemed to have been cut out.

At the time of the instant fire, Defendant B was the owner of the instant store, and Defendant A leased and occupied the said store from Defendant B, but Defendant A discontinued the business to undergo education at the time of the instant fire and went out.

E. On November 29, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 56,436,576 to C with respect to the instant fire, based on the instant fire insurance contract.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion is that of the fire insurance of this case.

arrow