logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.11.19 2014가합10784
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 107,937,297 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from March 27, 2014 to November 19, 2015 for the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The parties concerned are companies running a motor vehicle maintenance plant (hereinafter “maintenance plant”) in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 4th floor and underground 1st floor in the building located in Seongdong-gu, and whose main purpose is to conduct the comprehensive motor vehicle repair business. The Plaintiff and D are the owners of 1/2 shares in each of 3rd floor, 1st underground floor, and 1st floor in the 4th floor located outside the above building and adjacent to the above building (hereinafter “damage building”).

B. The structure and current status of the instant fire site 1) Each heat treatment design work room on the right and right of the rear door inside the 1st floor of the maintenance factory (hereinafter “Do book room”).

(ii) The damaged building was newly constructed as an office and a warehouse of a reinforced concrete sloping roof around July 1981, and was extended to a factory of a general steel-frame sand position plate roof around October 2007, and its structure and building timing are different. The outer wall is the sandd panel location and the dyke.

3) The distance between the maintenance plant and the damaged building is about 2.8m, but the first floor is close to about 1m. 4) The fire-fighting systems of the maintenance plant were fire extinguishers, guiding lights, and automated fire detection facilities.

C. A fire that occurred at around 08:30 on March 27, 2014, in the instant case, was destroyed by fire that occurred in the maintenance plant, and the fire that was destroyed by burning to the first, second, and third floors of the damaged building, the facilities installed in the building, and the inventory assets stored in the building was destroyed.

(hereinafter “instant fire”). D.

As a result of the damage assessment of a damaged building, and the Plaintiff’s fire insurance proceeds and the Plaintiff’s Mez fire and marine insurance company (hereinafter “Mez insurance”) requested the mobile damage adjusting company to conduct the damage assessment caused by the instant fire. On July 24, 2014, the mobile damage adjusting company was due to the instant fire.

arrow