logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.26 2015가단5234513
구상금
Text

1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 127,90,000 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from May 29, 2014 to July 30, 2015.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. From January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013, the Defendant leased the term of lease from the Korea Complex Logistics Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Complex Logistics Co., Ltd.”) to 27 Yangsan Terminal Delivery Center A-2 Dong (hereinafter “instant building”) as the water-Eup bank in Yangsan-si owned by the Korea Complex Logistics.

B. From March 31, 2013 to March 31, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract with Samsung Twitmark Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with the insured as the Korean complex logistics, which covers losses arising from the instant building.

C. On December 26, 2013, at around 01:10, a fire occurred in the instant building, and part of the instant building was destroyed, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 127,900,000 insurance money to the repair company, etc. designated by the Korea Complex Logistics Corporation, in order to compensate for the damages arising therefrom.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 14, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Where a lessee becomes unable to fulfill his/her duty to return the leased object, if the lessee is liable for damages due to the nonperformance, he/she shall bear the burden of proving that the nonperformance was not attributable to the lessee’s cause attributable to the lessee. In cases where the leased building was destroyed by fire and the cause of the fire is unknown, if the lessee is relieved of his/her liability, the lessee shall prove that he/she fulfilled his/her duty of care as to the preservation of the leased building. This legal doctrine applies to cases where the lessee seeks damages on the ground that the returned leased building was destroyed by fire, even though the obligation to return the leased object was not impossible at the time of the termination of the lease, and further the lease is terminated due to delay

Supreme Court Decision 201No. 2010 Decided April 29, 2010

arrow