logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.12.06 2017나61938
채무부존재확인
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is subject to paragraph (1).

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as follows, excluding any additional determination as follows, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Further determination 1) The defendant asserts that the accident in this case was caused by the residues remaining in the incinerated garbage, and therefore, it is difficult to recognize that the defendant's remaining in the incinerated garbage may cause a fire, even if all the evidence submitted to the court of first instance and the court of first instance were examined, it is difficult to find that the defendant directly caused a fire. Furthermore, even if the defendant caused a fire, the defendant at the time confirmed whether the residues in the incinerated garbage was extinguished (Evidence A No. 5) and entered the place adjacent to the incineration (Evidence A), so there is no ground to deem that the defendant violated the duty of due care otherwise, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the defendant's negligence was involved in the accident in the accident in this case. Accordingly, it is difficult to see that the defendant's tort liability exists. 2) The defendant asserts that the defendant is also liable for damages due to the defect in the installation and preservation of the incinerated garbage as an occupant in the incineration site.

However, since the waste incineration site is a place where the above corporation occupies as part of the place of business of the D corporation, the defendant cannot be recognized as an occupant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(3) The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and the judgment of the court of first instance, which is identical to this conclusion, is justified. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

arrow