logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
부산지방법원동부지원 2017.09.28 2015가합341
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 264,611,473, and the Plaintiff’s annual rate from August 25, 2014 to September 28, 2017; and (b) September 29, 2017.

Reasons

Basic Facts

B is a local river that is emitted from Busan District captain C and flowed into D.

B At the upper stream, E reservoir (hereinafter referred to as “instant reservoir”) was completed in around 1945 and has been operated until now.

The instant reservoir was managed by the Defendant pursuant to Article 16(1) of the former Rearrangement of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Act (amended by Act No. 12811, Oct. 15, 2014; hereinafter the same) and Article 2 of the Management Regulations for Agricultural and Fishing Villages Act.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff, as an enterprise processing and selling seaweeds, such as the U.S., was storing seaweeds, such as the B and D, by leasing a warehouse ( Address: Busan Gun G, hereinafter “instant warehouse”) in the F village near the point where B and D are combined.

On August 25, 2014, 13:30 Busan Metropolitan City, Ulsan Metropolitan City, and Yangsan-si entered into force, and the embankment of the instant reservoir (hereinafter “instant embankment”) collapseed on the same day due to the influence of the concentrated rain. Water leaked from the instant reservoir reached the F Village according to the roads, etc. while flowing the valley section of the valley B.

On the same day, the Plaintiff suffered flood damage (hereinafter referred to as “the flood damage of this case”) by raw materials, etc. stored in the warehouse of this case.

【In the absence of dispute, the Plaintiff’s instant reservoir, as a result of the appraisal by Gap’s evidence Nos. 5, 12, 13, and 22 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap’s evidence Nos. 3, 7, and 23, and appraiser H (hereinafter “appraisal”)’s appraisal by each video of Gap’s evidence Nos. 3, 7, and 23, and the entire purport of the pleading, the Plaintiff reservoir’s assertion of the purport of the entire pleadings, as a result of a thorough safety inspection on Nov. 2013, was in a state of need for repair and reinforcement. However, the Defendant neglected the repair, etc. of the instant reservoir on Aug. 25, 2014.