206Na4905 Damage, Claim

1. ○○○;

2. The place of auction;

3. Experimental;

4. The ▽▽▽▽△△

5. Do governor;

6. Supply of water;

Each of the plaintiffs' addresses omitted

The address omitted.

Busan District Court Decision 2005Gau109345 Decided March 16, 2006

July 13, 2006

August 31, 2006

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff ○○○ KRW 2,128,643, and 302,214 to the plaintiff ○○○, the amount of KRW 997,214 to the plaintiff ○○○○○, the plaintiff 613,426, the plaintiff 613,426, the defendant 1,37,288, and 505,538 won to the plaintiff ○○○○, and the amount of KRW 20% per annum from the day following the date of delivery of a duplicate of the written application for the conciliation of this case to the day of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

In the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the defendant shall be revoked and the corresponding plaintiffs' claims shall be dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiff ○○○○○ was parked each of the above vehicles on the Busan △△△△△ Ground Parking (hereinafter the instant parking lot) on September 6, 2005, as the owner of the instant land ***********, ****** Mazer, Mazer, such as Mazer, Mazers******* as the owner of the instant land △△△△△△△ (hereinafter the instant parking lot).

나. 피고는 10여년 전부터 이 사건 주차장과 접한 부산 @@@ 토지를 그 소유자인 ▦▦▦으로부터 임차하여 그 지상에 25평 가량의 쇠파이프 천막창고를 축조하여 냉장고부품창고로 사용하고 있었다.

C. However, on September 6, 2005, the pipe installed and installed in the tent of the above warehouse was fluorous, and covered each of the plaintiffs' vehicles parked in the instant parking lot, and caused damage equivalent to the repair cost to the plaintiffs, who are the owners thereof. The plaintiff ○○○○ caused damage to the plaintiff 2,128,643 won, 302,214 won to the plaintiff ○○○○○, 97,214 won to the plaintiff ○○○○, 997,214 won to the plaintiff ○○○○, 613,426 won to the plaintiff ○○○, 613,426 won to the plaintiff ○○○, 1,377,288 won to the plaintiff ○○○, and 505,538 won to the plaintiff ○○○ (hereinafter the accident

D. A structure owned by the Defendant is destroyed by part of the warehouse when the typhoon was sulperized in 2003.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry of Gap 1 through 6 (including each number), Gap 7 (including a paper number), 8, and Eul 3's video and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the facts of paragraph (1), the defendant had experience in destroying the warehouse of this case with typhoons in the year 2003, and there was a broadcast to make preparations for typhoons before typhoons coming due to typhoons on the typhoons, and therefore, the existing hacker structure is strong, and there is no risk of collapsed on strong typhoons due to the foundation defect, etc., and taking appropriate measures to prevent the occurrence of the accident in advance by taking appropriate measures to prevent the destruction of the hacker warehouse due to strong wind or the wind, despite the fact that it was possible to prevent the occurrence of the accident by taking adequate measures to prevent the destruction of the hacker warehouse due to strong wind, it is replaced only by the hacker and neglecting the basic part of the hacker structure without properly repairing it so that the basic part of the hacker structure can with strong wind, and thus the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for damages caused by the accident.

나. 이에 대하여 피고는 태풍 나비 방송을 듣고 ▣▣공업사에 의뢰하여 천막을 바꾸고 파이프 지주에 앙카를 박아 고정시키는 등의 안전조치를 하였고 이 사건은 천재지변으로 인한 것이므로 피고는 면책된다는 취지로 항변하나 을 4의 기재만으로 피고가 적절한 모든 안전조치를 다 했음을 인정하기 부족하고 달리 이를 인정할 아무런 증거가 없어 피고의 위 항변은 이유 없다.

However, according to the facts of paragraph 1, since the plaintiffs knew well that the defendant's pipe structure was damaged by the typhoons in the second half year, and it was predicted that there was a risk of additional collapse of the said steel structure, and therefore, it was negligent in neglecting it even though they could have been damaged by moving each vehicle to a safe place. The plaintiffs' above negligence contributed to the occurrence of the accident in this case and the expansion of the damage, and in light of all the circumstances, it is reasonable to evaluate the above negligence ratio to 40%. Accordingly, the defendant should compensate only 60% of the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident in this case.

3. Scope of damages.

As seen above, the defendant finally assumes the duty to pay to the plaintiff ○○○○ KRW 1,277,185 (2,128,643 x 0.6 x 0.6 x 0.6 x 0.6) to the plaintiff ○○○○○, 181,328 (302,214 x 0.6 x 0.6) to the plaintiff ○○○○○○○, 598,328 (97,214 x 0.6 x 0.6 x 0.6) to the plaintiff ○○○○○, 368,05 (613,426 x 0.6 x 0.6 x 0.6) to the plaintiff ○○○○○○, and 303,32222 (505,538 x 6 x 0.6) to the plaintiff ○○○○, by 2005.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition and the remaining claims shall be dismissed. The judgment of the court of first instance is just and the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge and the deputy judge;

Judges and higher-ranking

Judges Gangseo-young