logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.01.21 2019나10889
구상금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of the instant case is as follows, except for the addition of the following “2. Additional Determination” to the Plaintiff’s assertion that is emphasized by the court of first instance, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning for the first instance judgment under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The former lessee of the leased premise of the Plaintiff’s assertion newly installed various electric facilities, including the electrical connection distribution line (in the indoor ship, hereinafter “the instant electrical distribution line”) in the 3rdcheon-gu, which is presumed to be the cause of creation in order to operate a danran bar from the leased premise of the instant case. Since the Defendant B acquired the leased portion from the previous lessee, the electric distribution line of the instant case is within the controlled and managed area of Defendant B, the lessee.

Since Defendant B neglected to perform his duty of care, such as failing to check the facilities after having taken over the leased part of this case, and the fire of this case occurred, Defendant B is liable to compensate for damages incurred to the building of this case according to default liability or structure liability.

Since the Defendant Company is the insurer of Defendant B, the Defendants jointly have the obligation to pay the Plaintiff the indemnity amount or the insurer’s subrogation.

B. In determining whether a lessee is liable for damages due to the lessee’s failure to perform his/her duty of care as a good manager for the preservation of the leased building, the lessee bears the burden of proving that the lessee’s failure to perform his/her duty of care is not attributable to the lessee.

However, even if it is found that there is a cause for the lessee's breach of the duty to preserve the leased object in a state necessary for the lessee's use and profit-making, it is not possible to exempt the lessee from the liability even if the lessee has fulfilled his/her duty to preserve the object separately.

arrow