(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.04.26 2018가단5087459

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.04.26 2018가단5087459

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 10,944,223 as well as 5% per annum from March 6, 2018 to April 26, 2019 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of Czeyang-si, Namyang-si, C, 665 square meters and its ground storage (hereinafter “instant warehouse”), D forest 302 square meters and E forest 81 square meters (hereinafter “each of the instant forest”).

B. The F Ground Housing (hereinafter “instant Housing”) is owned by Nonparty G, and the warehouse next to the instant Housing is adjacent to that of the instant Housing (the instant Housing and the warehouse of this case), and each of the instant forests and fields are located behind the instant warehouse.

C. On March 6, 2018, at around 14:00, the Defendant visited the instant house and moved to the instant warehouse and each forest of this case into the wind, which was due to the wind weather during the process of incineration of the front cover of the instant house. Accordingly, the instant warehouse owned by the Plaintiff and each forest of this case were destroyed.

(hereinafter “instant fire”). D.

The defendant on May 10, 2018 shall be as follows.

A summary order of KRW 1,00,000 was issued for the same criminal facts as stated in the preceding paragraph.

(The grounds for recognition) The facts of absence of dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 9 (including the branch numbers, if any), the video and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. According to the facts of recognition as above, Gap evidence Nos. 4 and Eul evidence Nos. 9, the fire of this case was caused by the defendant's negligence, who neglected the duty of care to prevent the fire from spreading to another place in the course of incineration of the front turf of the house of this case. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the fire of this case.

3. Scope of liability for damages

A. According to the appraisal result by the Plaintiff’s alleged appraiser H (hereinafter “appraisal”), since the warehouse of this case was damaged by the entire building except the basic part, construction of the warehouse of this case may not be required.

According to the above appraisal results, this is examined.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원평택지원 2020.03.13 2019가단57280

-전주지방법원 2020.10.20 2020고정241

-수원지방법원 여주지원 2017.01.25 2016고정236

-청주지방법원 2019.06.20 2016나13612