logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2017.11.03 2016가합72795
손해배상(기) 등
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 213,422,140 as well as the annual rate of KRW 5% from December 1, 2015 to July 6, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant is the owner of the Goyang-gu building C (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On April 2, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the 202 shop of the instant building (hereinafter “instant store”) with the term “ deposit KRW 100 million, monthly rent of KRW 7.5 million, and the term of lease from April 2, 2014 to May 31, 2015,” and operated the restaurant with the trade name “D” at the said store from that time after paying the deposit amount of KRW 100 million to the Defendant on the same day.

C. On June 1, 2015, the day following the end date of the lease term under the said lease agreement, the Plaintiff newly concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant on the instant store, providing “the deposit KRW 100 million, monthly rent of KRW 9 million, and the lease term from June 1, 2015 to May 31, 2017” (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

On November 27, 2015, a fire (hereinafter “instant fire”) occurred in the instant building around 10:57, and a simple warehouse, main room, and the ceiling of the neglected part among the instant stores was destroyed.

The Gyeonggi Provincial Police Agency Scientific Investigation Committee determined that the fire in this case was first launched inside the ceiling, in light of the fact that the scams are distinguished from the upper ceiling of the wall surface adjacent to the hole of this case from the main room of this case.

E. On the other hand, the instant building was closed on January 27, 2016, on the ground that the instant building was destroyed or lost after the occurrence of the instant fire.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence No. 1 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant, as the owner of the instant building, has a duty to install warning equipment, etc. and maintain and manage the same in accordance with the Fire Prevention and Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems Act, but neglecting this duty is the wind at the time of the occurrence of the instant fire.

arrow