(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2016.06.02 2015가단35295

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2016.06.02 2015가단35295

손해배상

Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. The defendant, who operates the 9th floor E of the Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Building D Building, neglected to manage the affairs to prevent crimes within the saves, and thereby lost Handphones in the above saves room in which the plaintiffs were in their respective custody. Thus, the defendant, who operates the public entertainment room, is obliged to pay the plaintiffs a total of 2 million won and 1 million won of mental damages, each of which is equivalent to the value of each Handphones.

2. According to Article 152(2) of the Commercial Act, even if a public entertainment businessman does not receive a deposit from his/her customers, he/she is liable to compensate for any loss or damage caused by his/her personal belongings or his/her employee's negligence.

In addition, according to Article 153 of the Commercial Act, with respect to money, valuable instruments and other valuables, a public entertainment businessman shall not be liable for damages from the loss or damage if the customer does not expressly state the description and value of the article.

Based on the above legal principles, the fact that the plaintiffs did not deposit their respective handphones to the defendant, which they lost, does not conflict between the parties, and the handphones lost by the plaintiffs, are considered as valuable goods according to the plaintiffs' assertion. However, unless the plaintiffs do not deposit to the defendant with the defendant clearly stating the type and value of the plaintiffs, they cannot be held liable to compensate the defendant for the loss.

Furthermore, even if it is difficult to see lost Handphones as high-priced, it is insufficient to recognize that there is any negligence on the part of the defendant as to the loss of the above goods by the entries of Gap 1-4, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the fact that the defendant violated the duty of care as a public entertainment businessman. Thus, the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

3. Dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims

참조조문

-상법 제152조 제2항

-상법 제153조

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2015.01.23 2014나9127

-대법원 1977. 2. 8. 선고 75다1732 판결

-부산지방법원 2006.1.27.선고 2004나6044 판결

-제주지방법원 2020.08.25 2019나15922

-서울서부지방법원 2013.04.16 2013고단283