beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On April 6, 2010, the Plaintiff leased the 2nd floor of the ground waterside park management Dong, such as the Gangwon-do Incheon-do Incheon-gun, and operated “D” (hereinafter “instant restaurant”).
B. On April 9, 2010, the Plaintiff purchased WS-090RB 90 (3) air conditioners manufactured by the Defendant and installed them in the instant restaurant. On July 28, 2010, a fire (hereinafter “instant fire”) occurred due to the defect of the said air conditioners, and the inside of the instant restaurant was dissolved, and the Plaintiff discontinued the instant restaurant business thereafter.
【Ground of recognition】 Facts that there is no dispute between the parties concerned, entry of Gap evidence 2-1, 2-2, and Gap evidence 4-7, the purport of whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff did not operate the restaurant business of this case due to the fire of this case on July 2010 and August 2010, 2010, and thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for business suspension damage of KRW 30 million and delay damages.
B. Determination 1) In a case where a part of an article for business use was destroyed by a tort liability, the profits that could have been gained if the article for business use had been continued by using the article for a reasonable period necessary for repair, i.e., losses for business suspension, as far as it is possible to prove such losses (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2001Da82507, Mar. 18, 2004). On July 28, 2010, the fire of this case occurred and the fire of this case occurred, and the Plaintiff’s subsequent suspension of the restaurant business, as seen earlier. As such, the period from July 29, 2010 to August 31, 2010, the Defendant continued to operate the restaurant of this case within a reasonable period necessary for repair inside the previous restaurant. Thus, the Defendant had been able to obtain the Plaintiff during the above period.