logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.06.12 2017나2017007
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The plaintiffs' claims against the main defendant and the ancillary defendants.

Reasons

1. The scope of the instant court’s judgment: (a) the Plaintiffs filed a claim for damages with Defendant I as the primary Defendant, Defendant F, G, and H as the primary Defendant; (b) the first instance court partly accepted the claim against the primary Defendant; and (c) dismissed all of the conjunctive Defendants’ claims.

As to the part against which only the primary defendant was lost, if one of the primary co-litigants or the primary co-litigants files an appeal in a subjective preliminary co-litigation, the part of the claim against the other co-litigants shall be prevented, and it shall be subject to adjudication by the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da43355, Feb. 24, 201). Thus, the part of the claim against the conjunctive defendants by the primary defendant's appeal becomes the scope of adjudication of this court.

Therefore, this decision is judged together.

2. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the entry of "1. Basic Facts" among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, they are quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. As to the claim against the primary defendant

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the fire in this case occurred primarily due to electrical factors, such as the leakage of electric facilities connected to the front satisfaction of the frequency of the instant case established by Defendant I, and that Defendant I is obligated to pay the amount claimed to the plaintiffs as compensation for damages under Article 750 or 758(1) of the Civil Act.

B. According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 5 and 17 of the Civil Act and the whole pleadings, determination of the claim for damages under Article 758(1) of the Civil Act is based on the entirety of the arguments and arguments, it is deemed that the original water tank installed on the right side of the frequency of the instant case before the occurrence of the instant fire (hereinafter “instant water tank”).

Part of the upper part (not the upper part within a water tank but the upper part outside the water tank).

The fact that the flame has been discovered is adjacent to the number of this case.

arrow