206Na49675 Compensation (as stated)

Kim 00

Co., Ltd. 00

Law Firm Barun

Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2005Ka60769 Decided May 12, 2006

April 4, 2007

April 25, 2007

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to that part is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's incidental appeal is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall deliver a complaint to the plaintiff 57,850,000 won and the interest rate from the day after the delivery of the complaint to the day of complete payment.

20% of the 20% interest shall be paid.

2. Purport of appeal

Plaintiff’s Incidental Appeal: Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part seeking additional payment

The part against the plaintiff against the plaintiff shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 29,026,315 and the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff on October 2005.

11. From the date of a judgment in the first instance to the date of a judgment, 5% per annum and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

in addition to the money so paid.

Defendant: Revocation of the part against Defendant in the judgment of the first instance, and the Plaintiff’s claim corresponding to that part.

The dismissal is dismissed.

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or are recognized by Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 through 4, and Gap evidence 3-6 and the fact inquiry results to the Yangcheon chief of the fire station of this court.

A. The plaintiff is a company that operates a hospital (hereinafter "the hospital of this case") on the second floor among the buildings located in Yangcheon-gu in Seoul, Yangcheon-gu. The defendant is a company that operates unmanned machine security service business, human resources security service business, etc.

B. On December 7, 2001, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to use the second floor of the building as security object, to use security service as basic service, and to receive emergency notification service as additional service, and the contract term is three years from December 7, 2001 (Provided, That the contract term shall be extended automatically for one year if one of the parties has not notified the termination of the contract one month prior to the expiration of the contract pursuant to the proviso of Article 3(2) of the Basic Terms and Conditions, and the contract term was extended for one year from December 7, 2001. The contract term of the instant security service contract was extended for one year from December 7, 2004.

C. On June 11, 2005, at around 56: (a) a fire presumed to be an electrical joint ship (hereinafter “the fire of this case”) occurred in the above hospital building; (b) movable property, such as medical equipment inside the above building, etc., were discharged, causing considerable amount of property damage to the Plaintiff.

D. At around 22:50 on the same day from the time of the occurrence of the above fire, the Defendant received a regular signal (AC LOSS), but at around 23:40, the Defendant arrived at the scene of the fire at around 50:50, under the judgment that a certain amount of expenses can be spent for the internal stacks. At that time, the fire officers and police officers, etc., dispatched to the instant hospital, were under the control of fire extinguishment and surrounding areas.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages incurred by the plaintiff, i.e., property damages incurred by the fire of this case, i.e., 50 million won and damages incurred by the fire of this case, i., e., e., 40 million won and 75 million won in total, since the fire of this case occurred at the time of the fire of this case, and the fire of this case was not known to the fire of this case, and the plaintiff did not explain that the fire of this case should take place at the time of the security contract of this case. This defendant's act did not prevent the fire of this case from being caused by the fire of this case, or the damages caused by the fire of this case were not compensated. Thus, the defendant is not liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages caused by the fire of this case, i.e., the damage caused by the fire of this case by the fire of this case to the plaintiff.

B. Determination

First, as to whether the Defendant’s sending of the instant signal to the instant hospital after 50 minutes of time constitutes a violation of the duty under the instant contract, Article 8 of the Security Services Industry Act provides that the security business entity shall take necessary measures, such as prompt confirmation of the fact when it receives a warning for the instant facilities. Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Security Services Industry Act provides that “The security business entity shall have a response system within 25 minutes from the time when it receives a warning from the control facility under Article 8 of the Act.” According to the evidence No. 3, the Defendant’s provision of Article 2(1) of the Terms and Conditions for Security Services Act provides that the Defendant is not obliged to take necessary measures against the instant accidents, such as providing information to the scene, and thus, it is difficult to find that the Defendant’s failure to take necessary measures for the first time after the dispatch of the signal to the scene, for the first time after the conclusion of the instant contract.” However, the Defendant’s failure to take necessary measures for the first time after the dispatch of the signal to the scene can be acknowledged.

Next, the facts that the fire officer, etc. did not know of the fact that the fire officer, etc. had access to the hospital of this case and did not know of the fact that the fire officer had access to the hospital of this case, were the defendant, but the defendant was not aware of the fact that the fire officer had been sent to the hospital of this case after 50 minutes. However, there was a high possibility that the defendant's fire occurred in the hospital of this case at that time, which caused the fire and did not work normally, and the defendant did not know of the fact that the fire officer had access to the hospital of this case. The defendant did not know of the fact that the fire officer had access to the hospital of this case due to the defendant's mistake, and there was no other evidence to acknowledge it. Further, even if the defendant was dispatched to the hospital with the knowledge of the fact that the fire officer had access to the hospital of this case, the fire officer had already been developing to a considerable extent, and the fire officer was dispatched, so it was difficult to find a proximate causal relation between the defendant's movement and damage.

Finally, as to the assertion that the Defendant did not explain the fact that at the time of the instant security contract, the Plaintiff did not have to purchase a separate supplementary service in order to prevent fire, and that the Plaintiff was able to cope with the fire under the instant security contract, it cannot be deemed as the Defendant’s nonperformance on the ground that the Defendant, a security service company, did not provide an explanation as alleged by the Plaintiff at the time of entering into the instant security contract, and even if the Plaintiff was erroneous as to the content of the instant security contract, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s fault is not attributable to the Defendant. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant is liable for nonperformance related to the instant fire is without merit, without examining further the amount of damages.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, it is reasonable to dismiss the plaintiff's claim of this case for the reason that it is reasonable to dismiss the plaintiff's claim of this case. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with some different conclusions, the part against the defendant in the judgment of first instance which accepted the defendant's appeal and revoked the part against the defendant in the judgment of first instance, and the plaintiff's incidental appeal is dismissed

Judges Lee Sung-tae, Counsel for defendant

Judges Ham-type

Judges Park Jin-young