(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.07.23 2019나79404

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) 수원지방법원 2020.07.23 2019나79404

손해배상(기)

Text

Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the Defendants exceeding the amount ordered to be paid under paragraph (2) is revoked.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the corresponding part is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the abbreviationd name used in the judgment of the court

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the first instance is as follows, if Defendant Republic of Korea excludes the part of the judgment of the first instance as to the assertion added or emphasized by this court, and thus, the relevant part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. The Defendant Republic of Korea has installed a fence on the land of this case on a day before July 2, 2017, which was before the date of the flood accident of this case.

7. 15. We argue to the effect that the installation of the fence of this case cannot be viewed as the cause of the flood accident of this case, since there was a considerable concentration between 15.15.

The following facts and circumstances are acknowledged in accordance with Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 28, the results of the fact-finding on the Administrator of the Korea Meteorological Administration of this court, and the purport of the pleading, i.e., U., the result of the survey of U Weather Survey Station located in the area most adjacent to the land of this case, (i) according to the result of the survey of the U Weather Survey Station located in the area most adjacent to the land of this case, the flood accident of this case occurred on July 16, 2017, 96.5 meters (the new wall No. 4: 28m, 56.5m, 6m, 12m) intensively during the short time between the new wall No. 4:530, Jul. 2, 2017.

7. It is difficult to find grounds to view that there was a concentrated rainfall between 15.15. The highest rainfall per hour on the date the above defendant asserts that there was a rain similar to the occurrence of the flood accident of this case, respectively, on July 2, 2017;

7.4.9m;

7. 18.5m;

7. 15.1m only;

(2) The Korea Meteorological Administration.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2019.10.22 2018나89985

-창원지방법원 2016.04.22 2015가단74391

-서울남부지방법원 2016.01.21 2015나55057

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.10 2014가단5280441

-수원지방법원 2018.04.26 2017나70915