beta
Text
1. Defendant C’s KRW 60,616,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from February 13, 2014 to February 16, 2017.
Reasons
1. Claim against Defendant C
(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;
(b) Judgment by service: Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act;
2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B
A. The Plaintiff alleged that the leased object was damaged by fire, and the Defendant did not perform his/her duty to maintain the leased object in the state necessary for the use and profit-making thereof. As such, the Plaintiff is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages due to nonperformance, and the Plaintiff is also liable to compensate for damages due to defects in the installation or preservation of structures under Article 758 of the Civil Act.
B. Determination 1) In full view of the fact that there is no dispute between the parties to the determination as to default liability, the entries in Gap evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of Gap evidence 6-1 through 27 as a whole in each video, it is recognized that, on February 13, 2014, a fire was occurred in the second floor factory owned by the plaintiff on the ground (hereinafter "the factory of this case") in Silung-si, the plaintiff's business site where the above fire was partially leased and used, damage, such as smuggling machinery damage, etc. was caused, as a result of the fire site investigation, and that the fire was presumed to have been caused by the stude of the front class of the school in the part that was occupied and managed by the defendant C, as a result of the fire site investigation.
However, the circumstances revealed in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, i.e., ① the factory of this case was granted a building permit on Jun. 20, 193 and approved for use on Jan. 8, 1994, and Defendant B acquired ownership through the real estate auction procedure on Oct. 28, 2009, ② the factory of this case was installed with fire extinguishers, automated fire detection facilities, indoor fire hydrant, etc., and seems to have not been subject to a sprinkler installation unlike others, ③ the factory of this case was managed by the plaintiff as an agent in the dispute resolution committee for fire-fighting inspection of Class 2.