logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원서부지원 2019.09.04 2018가단57947
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff was responsible for the damage caused by fire caused by being stuck to combustible materials, such as electric wires, clothing, dust dust, etc., due to the temperature interruption line of the above electric charging board, while purchasing and using the electric charging board manufactured by the defendant within the residential area.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 14,776,00 for the cost of repairing the building, KRW 20,00 for the damaged household tools, photographs, and calligraphic works, etc., KRW 20,000 for the 14-day period for building repair work, and KRW 5,276,00 for the 14-day period for building repair work, as damages under the Product Liability Act.

2. According to Gap evidence No. 3, the fire site investigation report prepared by the fire station in charge of extinguishing the fire site of this case can be acknowledged that "it is highly likely that a fire may occur as it is loaded to the combustible materials such as electric wires, clothes, dust dusts, etc. caused by the fall that occurred from the electrical charging temperature connection line at the fire site of this case," but the following circumstances are revealed in light of Gap evidence No. 2 and Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the pleading as a whole. In other words, the legal assessment report of the National Scientific Research Institute of Korea, which appraised the fire site of this case, stated that "it is not clearly distinguishable from the electrical charging heat of this case, and there is no electrical characteristics related to the combustion from the electrical charging heat of this case, but from the point of view of the fact that the defendant's report on the accident site of this case, it is not clear that the state carbon and heat transformation from the heat of the part not burned at the time of decomposition of the electricity site of this case, and that the defendant's report on the fire site of this case was collected from 10: the temperature of this case.

arrow