(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2018.07.27 2016가단120602

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) 서울동부지방법원 2018.07.27 2016가단120602

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)

(a) annex.

Reasons

1. The following facts are found to be without dispute between the parties, or acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1 and 12.

A. On August 13, 2015, the Plaintiff leased, from the Defendant, real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant real estate”) as of September 15, 2015, from September 15, 2015 to September 15, 2016, the lease deposit amount of KRW 3 million, monthly rent of KRW 400,000, and monthly rent of KRW 15,000 as of the 15th day of each month.

(hereinafter referred to as "the instant lease agreement". (b)

The Plaintiff is operating a wholesale and retail business of beauty art products in the instant real estate.

2. Determination as to the principal lawsuit

A. On February 2016, the Plaintiff’s assertion that water supply pipes inside the ceiling of the instant real estate were installed and leakage occurred.

As a result, the sum of KRW 64,94,60, which was sold by the Plaintiff, was damaged to the floor of the instant real estate, and the amount of KRW 65,494,600 was KRW 600,000 for the beauty art products sold by the Plaintiff. In order to adjust the water leakage damage, the Plaintiff spent labor costs of KRW 600

Therefore, the defendant, who violated the duty to use the leased object as a lessor, is obligated to pay 68,594,600 won to the plaintiff as damages.

B. In full view of the records in Gap evidence Nos. 13 through 16, the images of Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 11, and the voice of Gap evidence No. 23, it is recognized that there was leakage in the ceiling of the real estate of this case around 2016, and the fact that the packaging, etc. of the plaintiff's cosmetic goods loaded on the real estate of this case has been damaged and the value of the goods of this case has been reduced or lost.

However, the quantity, value, degree of damage, etc. of the goods damaged by the water leakage can not be recognized only by the entries of the evidence Nos. 3, 29, and 34, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the amount of damage compensation.

In cases where it is difficult to prove the amount of damage due to its nature, indirect facts are.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2015.01.28 2013가합7428

-인천지방법원 2017.01.13 2016가단224328

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.07.06 2016가단5171206

-제주지방법원 2018.09.17 2016가단16374

-창원지방법원 2018.01.25 2015가단88406