(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.04.14 2015나51129

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.04.14 2015나51129

손해배상(기)

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. On June 19, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the lease deposit for the lease of KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 1300,000,000, and from June 27, 2013 to June 26, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant for the lease of KRW 170,000,000,000 for the first floor of Class 1 neighborhood living facilities on the top of the Goyang-gu Seo-gu general steel structure (hereinafter “instant building”).

However, around 13:30 on November 18, 2013, a fire (hereinafter “instant fire”) occurred in the instant building, and the said building was relocated, and accordingly the lease contract was terminated.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, purport of whole pleadings]

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the instant fire was caused by the pressure and damage of electric wires installed on the floor by the bend unit, etc. while the Defendant used the vehicle to carry out the instant fire, and thus, the Defendant’s duty to return leased objects was impossible due to the nonperformance of the fiduciary’s duty to preserve the leased building.

Therefore, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount equivalent to 69,190,000 won equivalent to the market price of the building of this case as compensation for damages incurred thereby, and the delay damages therefor.

3. The lessee should fulfill his/her duty of care as a good manager with respect to the preservation of the leased building, and if the lessee is exempted from liability for damages due to the lessee’s failure to fulfill his/her duty of return of the leased building, he/she shall bear the burden of proving that the impossibility of performance

However, if it is found that there is a cause of a lessor's breach of the duty to preserve the leased object in a state necessary for the lessee to use and benefit from it, it shall not be deemed that the lessee is exempt from the liability even if he/she separately claims and proves that the lessee has fulfilled the duty to preserve the object.

Therefore, the lessee of a house, other building or part of it takes over the object from the lessor.

유사 판례

-대법원 2001. 1. 19. 선고 2000다57351 판결

-(변경)대법원 1992. 9. 22. 선고 92다16652 판결

-대법원 1982. 8. 24. 선고 82다카254 판결

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.01.17 2015가단5109082

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.02.04 2014가단14156