logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.03.25 2015나54456
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 6, 2012, the Defendant obtained the Plaintiff’s consent to use the Plaintiff’s housing in Young-gun C of Gangwon-do (hereinafter “instant housing”) from the Plaintiff, and used the housing free of charge from the Plaintiff from 6 to 7 p.m. on the day to 1 to 2 p.m. on the following day from 6 p.m. to 7 Oct. 7, 2012.

B. The instant housing was discharged from a fire that occurred around 6-7 p.m. on October 7, 2012 (hereinafter “instant fire”), and all of the devices, such as air conditioners, washing machines, and computers, located in the instant housing.

C. On January 4, 2013, the National Institute of Scientific Investigation presented an appraisal opinion that the cause of the instant fire is presumed to have been initial in the cooling house of this case, such as distinguishing melting tracess from the electrical heat, which can function as the cause of combustion, at the bottom of the compression at the back of the cooling house located in the instant house (hereinafter “instant cooling house”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a) Where a lessee becomes unable to fulfill his/her duty to return the leased object, if the lessee is liable for damages due to nonperformance, he/she shall be responsible to prove that the impossibility of performance is not due to the lessee’s cause attributable to him/her, and where the leased building was destroyed by fire and the cause of the fire is unknown, if the lessee is exempted from his/her liability, he/she shall prove that he/she has fulfilled his/her duty of due care as a good manager

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da96984, Apr. 29, 2010; Supreme Court Decision 94Da38182, Oct. 14, 1994). As to the instant case, the health unit and the Defendant are in the same position as the user or lessee for the temporary use of the instant house, and due to the instant fire.

arrow