logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2021.02.18 2020가단5057154
구상금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Case summary

A. Basic facts 1) The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a property comprehensive insurance contract with C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) and the insured, with respect to the construction and facilities owned by C, and with respect to the insurance period from April 2, 2018 to April 2, 2019.

2) On November 6, 2018, which was within the foregoing insurance period, on April 27, 2015, the Defendant paid KRW 45,734,502 (the amount obtained by deducting its own charges from the cost of re-purchase of boiler) as damages incurred to the boiler itself.

【Ground of recognition】 The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. As the cause of the instant claim, the Plaintiff, as the cause of the instant claim, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages arising from the nonperformance of liability due to incomplete performance or tort liability, as the Plaintiff sold and sold the boiler that the Defendant did not have safety to C and caused damages equivalent to the above insurance proceeds to C.

The argument is asserted.

2. Determination

A. A person who manufactures and sells a product is liable to manufacture the product with safety outcomes within the scope expected in light of the level of modern technology and economic feasibility in terms of its structure, quality, and performance. In the event of any defect or defect not equipped with safety and durability, a person is liable to compensate for damages or tort arising from incomplete implementation of a contract for supply of the product.

In addition, in order to recognize the existence of such defects, defects or incomplete performance, it should be proved that the explosion accident at least occurred in the area under exclusive control of the defendant by the manufacturer, and that the accident does not normally occur without fault in the manufacture (Supreme Court Decision 200 February 2, 200).

arrow