2016 Ghana 43138 Damages

A

B

January 23, 2018

February 27, 2018

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 12,43,600 won with 5% interest per annum from February 12, 2016 to February 27, 2018, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. One-half of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 25,807,00 won with 15% interest per annum from the day following the day of service of a copy of the complaint of this case. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 15% interest per annum from the day of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who operates a middle levere store in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) No. 161 (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s store”). From August 2005 to August 268, 2005, the Defendant is a person who leased 263-268 of the instant commercial building to operate a levere room.

B. The Defendant did not use sewage pipes that were installed at the time of installing a toilet repair room (hereinafter referred to as “original pipes”) and installed a separate sewage pipe (hereinafter referred to as “additional pipes”) as shown in the attached drawings. The Defendant connected the additional pipes with the 269th floor of the instant commercial building (hereinafter referred to as “public room”) which was used at the time of the Defendant’s use as a scke.

C. On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s store has a public room immediately before the Plaintiff’s store, and around September 15, 2016, the Plaintiff’s store opened water in the ceiling of the Plaintiff’s store and fell a considerable amount of water at an interval of lurging, and the interior interior interior of the store and television were flooded (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

D. In addition, the Plaintiff did not properly conduct its business for about 15 days until the end of October, 2016 due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

Since the instant accident occurred from the cream room possessed by the Defendant as a result of flood control and piping problems, the Defendant is liable for damages to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 758 of the Civil Act as the possessor of the cream room or piping. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff is liable for damages to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 758 of the Civil Act. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff suffers from inundation and television inundation, business losses and mental damage. The Defendant is liable to pay to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 25,807,00 (the interior construction cost of KRW 11,062,00 + the leakage construction cost of KRW 80,000 + the leakage construction cost of KRW 70,000 + the total of KRW 70,000 + the total of KRW 10,245,000 + the total of business losses for 15 days + the total of KRW 3,000,000.

3. Determination

A. Occurrence of damages liability

1) “Defects in the installation or maintenance of a structure” under Article 758(1) of the Civil Act refer to situations in which a structure does not have ordinary safety according to its intended purpose. Determination of whether such safety is met must be made on the basis of whether the installer or custodian of the structure fulfilled his/her duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required in proportion to the risk of the structure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Da61615, Feb. 11, 2010). Moreover, an accident arising from a defect in the installation or maintenance of a structure does not mean only where only the defect in the installation or maintenance of the structure causes damages. Inasmuch as the defect in the installation or maintenance of the structure becomes one of the common causes for the accident, damage arising from an accident is deemed to have occurred due to the defect in the installation or maintenance of the structure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Da101343, Apr. 29, 2010; 2016Da36164.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively considering the evidence mentioned above and the statements mentioned in Gap evidence Nos. 11 and 12, and the witness D and E’s testimony as a whole, it is reasonable to deem that the accident in this case occurred due to the Defendant’s failure to properly execute flood control and the construction for preventing the end of the tap pipe, etc., so the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the accident in this case as the possessor of the speak or pipe.

(1) In order to identify the water sources, water shelshes in the swelshes of the swelshes, water has come to fall in the ceiling of the Plaintiff’s store.

② The Defendant well covered the part protruding out of the original pipeline at the time of the scrypt test, but did not properly treat the end of the original pipeline (attached Form 1) when the scrypted the bottom of the scrypt to verify the scrypt.

(3) When the floor of a sprink and a factory room was cut in order to verify the sponsor, the surrounding areas was spamed according to the shape of additional pipes.

④ The construction of the main pipe completed and the number of water leakages occurred after several months, and the waterproof construction was incurred, and the Plaintiff’s store did not enjoy water leakage.

2) However, the Defendant’s liability is limited to 80% of the Defendant’s liability by taking into account all the circumstances shown in the records and arguments, such as the fact that the Defendant’s notification of water leakage was prohibited from using a three-way, that the sewage used in a place other than a three-way area might have been flowed, that the damage would have been expanded due to reflowing, and that the sewage pipe construction of the instant commercial building was re-scheduled on or around December 2016 due to a reverse phenomenon, etc.

(b) Scope of damages;

1) Determination as to claim for interior expenses, etc.

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in each statement in evidence Nos. 8, 13, and 14, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff paid KRW 12,542,000 in the aggregate of KRW 12,50,000 in the artificial park expenses, etc. due to the instant accident (such as KRW 3,70,000 + 3,600,000 + 3,600,000,000 ＋ floor expenses + KRW 1,122,00,000,000 in the cost of water leakage, and 680,000,000 in the television replacement cost.

2) Determination as to claim for business losses

In a case where it is deemed that it is extremely difficult to prove specific amount of damage due to the nature of the case, even though the fact that the damage occurred, the court may determine a reasonable amount as damages by taking into account all the relevant indirect facts, including the relationship between the parties, the background leading up to the occurrence of the damage, the nature of the damage, and various circumstances after the occurrence of the damage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da13832, Jun. 10, 2016);

In other words, the Plaintiff stated that the monthly average sales amount of KRW 30,000 from KRW 30,000 to KRW 35,000,000, average monthly sales amount of KRW 30,000, and KRW 7,000 from KRW 6,00,00, average monthly sales amount of KRW 30,000, and KRW 7,000, average monthly sales amount of KRW 30,000, and KRW 30,000, respectively, according to the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, the actual sales amount of September 2016 and October 10, in which the instant accident occurred, exceeds KRW 30,00,00,00 each day, and the Plaintiff did not properly conduct business for about 15,00,000,000 each day, and the amount of monthly sales amount of KRW 30,000,00,000 from the instant accident.

3) Determination on the claim of consolation money

In general, in a case where a property right is infringed due to a tort of another person, the compensation for property damage alone shall be deemed to have been recovered from mental suffering by compensating for such property damage, barring special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decisions 2003Da22912, Jul. 25, 2003; 2006Da14455, Nov. 1, 200).

However, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff suffered an irrecoverable mental loss due to the compensation for property damage, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. The Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

C. Sub-committee

As to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 12,43,600 won (12,542,000 won, such as interior expenses, + business losses + 3,000,000 won) and damages for delay calculated at each rate of 15% per annum under the Civil Act from December 27, 2016 to February 27, 2018, which is the day following the day when a copy of the complaint of this case was served, to the day when a copy of the complaint of this case was served.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are groundless.

Judges Hwang Young-hee

A person shall be appointed.