logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.01.08 2014가단5182189
구상금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 971,847,948 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from January 24, 2014 to January 8, 2016.

Reasons

1. On July 16, 2012, the Defendant: (a) entered into a contract with a manufacturer in Connden, a manufacturer, under which the Defendant entered into a contract to supply the bank and its subsidiary materials of the Defendant’s manufacture to KRW 1,030,000 (Additional Tax separately); (b) as a result of the performance of some of the above contracts, the Defendant supplied the Snmark Bank Co., Ltd. and one 1,000,000 (the amount equivalent to KRW 495,00,000,000, which is separate from surcharges; and (c) supplied the Snmark Bank and its subsidiary materials to the Snmark Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant Connmark Bank”).

On July 1, 2013, the Plaintiff concluded a comprehensive insurance contract with Jinjin with the insurance period from July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014, including mechanical damage and security.

On July 22, 2013, a fire (hereinafter “the fire of this case”) occurred while a part of the container Denmark bank explosive was explosiond in the process of performing the quality inspection of the high-surgic electrical manufacturing voltage at the Sweden-gun Sweden Sweden 561 located in the Sweden-gun Sweden 561.

The Plaintiff paid KRW 2,074,969,559 (in total, KRW 482,07,60, and KRW 1,592,81,881,959, and KRW 1,592,00, and KRW 1,592,88,775,772, out of the above damages, on January 24, 2014, the amount of net damages incurred from the instant fire to the machinery and buildings other than the instant container Denmark Bank, excluding the value of residual property, and the amount of net damages incurred from the machinery and buildings other than the instant container Denmark Bank).

[Grounds for Recognition: Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1-5, 9, 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the fire of this case occurred due to the defect of the Plaintiff’s Connmark bank, the Defendant is liable for nonperformance on the net damages incurred from the Connmark bank of this case, other than the Connmark bank of this case.

arrow