All
| TITLE | Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da86895, 86901 Decided May 18, 2017【Damages (Etc.)】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
|
[1] In the event a lessee’s performance of the duty to return an object of lease becomes impossible due to the leased object having been destroyed by a fire, whether the lessee is liable for damages from such nonperformance unless able to prove that the nonperformance was due to a cause not attributable to oneself (affirmative) Whether this legal principle is equally applicable to cases where a lessor seeks liability for damages on the ground that the leased building in which the lessee returned was destroyed by a fire (affirmative) If a fire that broke out while a lease agreement was in effect is presumed to have been caused by a defect existing in an area controlled and managed by a lessor, whether the lessor is able to seek liability for damages against the lessee for nonperformance of the duty to return the object of lease due to a fire (negative in principle) [2] In the event a fire, which occurred in the part of a building owned by a lessor that was partially leased for use and profit-taking, destroyed not only areas of the building that was leased but also areas not leased, and the lessor consequentially incurred property damage therefrom, matters that the lessor is required to assert and prove to seek compensation for damages incurred on the non-leased premises due to the lessee’s nonperformance [3] Legal nature of a victim’s direct right of action (i.e., right to claim damages) pursuant to Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act, and scope of liability borne by an insurer based therefrom |
|
