logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.07.19 2016가단5149933
구상금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 21, 2015, the Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an insurance contract with the representative E of CFD (hereinafter “D”) located in the Namnam-gun (hereinafter “D”) regarding D’s buildings, facilities, and household fixtures, etc. as of July 21, 2015 to July 21, 2025, with the insurance period fixed from July 21, 2015 to July 21, 2025.

B. Around April 13, 2015, the Defendant, a company for manufacturing and selling cooking equipment, such as sprinking, manufactured one frying frying frying frying (hereinafter “frying frying frying frying”), which was requested by E to make an order, and sold it to E.

C. On December 10, 2015, when using approximately 8 months the instant sprinking machine, two employees moved to the instant sprinking machine on December 10, 2015. On the ground that the remaining sprinking oil remaining in using the instant sprinking machine, making it difficult for them to move, the instant sprinking machine was inserted in order to move the sprinking machine after melting and discharging the sprinking oil.

D In a situation where two employees of D were in operation of the instant spunching machine, waiting for spunching to melt and doing other operations in the vicinity, a fire was caused by a sudden smoke in the instant spunching machine, so that a fire was caused by a fire, and damage was caused by a fire, such as neighboring walls, roof finishing materials, electrical equipment, and duct equipment.

(hereinafter “the instant fire accident”). E.

On February 26, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 24,651,007 to E with the insurance proceeds from the instant fire accident according to the instant insurance contract.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 18, Eul evidence 1 through 4, Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 13 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff argued by the parties that the fire of this case was used in a normal way on the side D, a user of the frying.

arrow