logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.29 2017나47443
구상금
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. As an insurer, the Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract with B on June 3, 2015 with respect to a customer parking lot located in Busan Jung-gu (hereinafter “instant parking lot”) with the coverage period from June 3, 2015 to June 3, 2020, to compensate for parking lots within the scope of KRW 5,000,000 each in the case of large and large persons and large persons (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

B. On September 22, 2015, the Defendant entered into a contract for the maintenance and repair of parking facilities in the instant parking lot (hereinafter “instant parking facility” and “instant maintenance and repair contract”) with A, and has performed the duty of maintenance and repair, such as checking the status of the instant parking facilities once a month.

다. A이 2016. 10. 1. 19:00경 이 사건 주차 시설에 주차되어 있던 차량을 출차하기 위하여 출차 버튼을 누르자 ‘쿵’하는 소리가 들렸고, 이에 피고에게 연락하여 피고 직원이 이 사건 주차 타워를 점검하였으나 주차 시설의 하자를 발견하지는 못하였다.

Since then, when A drives a parking facility and drives a vehicle, C, D, and E were damaged.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). D.

On November 30, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5,000,000 of the insurance money for the instant accident to A.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the accident of this case occurred due to the defendant's breach of contractual duty to maintain the safety state of driving of the parking facility of this case, and the defendant asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the above insurance money paid by the plaintiff due to default liability or tort

B. We examine the judgment, and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone violates the duty of care in maintenance and repair to the Defendant.

In the event of this case, parking facilities are installed at the time of the accident.

arrow