logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.02.04 2014가합12600
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendants jointly and severally to the Plaintiff (Appointeds) KRW 78,735,880, KRW 24,218,019, and KRW 60 to the Appointeds E.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Plaintiff”), the Selection E, and F are co-owners holding 2/7, 3/7, 2/7, and 2/7 shares in relation to each of the instant fire buildings with respect to 170 square meters in a steel-frame mushroom growing building located in Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant fire building”). The Plaintiff is the owner of H-ground housing 99.30 square meters (hereinafter “instant burning housing”) and 27.3 square meters between vain and vain (hereinafter “the instant burner”).

B. On December 22, 2011, Defendant B entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff and the instant fire building with a deposit of KRW 10,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 950,000, and the lease term of KRW 24 months (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and Defendant C, along with Defendant C, operated a spact dilution manufacturing business with the trade name “I” in the instant fire building.

C. On September 9, 2013, around 13:55, Defendant B moved the reagents contained in the drum to a small container using the electric drum pumps (hereinafter “instant drum pumps”), and the instant drum pumps caused a fire (hereinafter “instant fire”), and the instant drum pumps’s drums are presumed to be the first source of the fire.

The fire of this case was damaged due to the fire of this case, and the fire of this case and vain simplified burning.

(2) Each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 7, and 8 (including, if any, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of all pleadings and arguments, as a whole, that there is no dispute about the fire building in this case, the burning house in this case, and vain.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant fire occurred during the process of dealing with inflammable dangerous substances, and the Defendants manufactured a paint with a strong inflammable substance, and did not keep fire-fighting systems as well as fire-fighting equipment.

arrow