logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2021.01.22 2020나104024
손해배상(기)
Text

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The purport and purport of the appeal [the purport of the appeal]

Reasons

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the first instance are as follows, except for the amendments and addition of “2. Additional Determination”, and thus, it is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the first instance. Accordingly, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The phrase "the court of first instance" in addition to "the result of the expert appraisal commission of the 4th 16th and 8th 6th ," and the phrase "the court of first instance" in the 5th 9th 9th , respectively, shall be read as "the court of first instance" and "each 6th th th th 6th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th "each 7th th th th th th th th th" shall be read as "the day on which the court of first instance pronounced"

2. Additional determination

A. The fire occurred due to the defect in the installation and preservation of the facilities that caused the fire by gross negligence by making shots used by the equipment in the lower warehouse of the instant store, or caused the fire by gross negligence. As a result, the Plaintiff suffered damage not only to the instant store which is the object of the lease but also to the other parts of the store which is the object of the lease.

Therefore, the defendant is also liable to the plaintiff for tort liability under Article 750 of the Civil Act as well as as the possessor and owner of a structure under Article 758 of the Civil Act.

B. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the instant fire occurred due to the Defendant’s negligence or the defect in the installation and preservation of the Defendant’s facilities, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit without having to examine it.

3. Conclusion, the first instance judgment is justifiable, and the Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed.

arrow