[손해배상(기)][하집1990(3),126]
Whether a building owner has the obligation to install a short circuit circuit circuit installed by the lessee according to the business needs of the building owner on the street;
In a case where Defendant A leased 1/2 of the underground floors of his own building to Nonparty B and operated a removal facility at each place, and installed a removal advertising sign on the wall of the present site to be supplied through electric wires connected to the electrical supply and demand point of the above removal site, and the non-party C, who received a transfer of all the above business rights and facilities, removed the above propaganda sign and installed a separate propaganda sign on the wall of approximately 50 centimeters away from the wall of the central entrance, if the non-party C, who received a transfer of the above business rights and facilities, installed a separate propaganda sign on the wall of India using the previous electric wires as it is, pursuant to Article 42 of the Rules on Technical Standards for Electric Installations (No. 414 of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy No. 1974), he cannot be said to be the owner of the above building, who is the owner of the above publicity sign, as the owner of the electricity expropriation in the above removal site or the owner of the above advertising sign.
Article 758 of the Civil Act, Article 42 of the Regulations on Technical Standards for Electric Installations (Ordinance of the Ministry of Public Administration and Security No. 414 January 9, 1974)
Plaintiff 1 and four others
Han Sang only
Seoul District Court Decision 88Gahap8597 delivered on North Korean Branch Court of the first instance (Law Firm 88Gahap8597
1. The plaintiffs' appeal and the plaintiff 1's claim confirmed in the trial are all dismissed.
2. The appeal costs are assessed against the plaintiffs.
The original judgment shall be revoked.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount of KRW 172,783,180, and to the plaintiff 2 and 3 an amount of KRW 3,000,000 per annum from July 10, 198 to the original sentence, and the amount of KRW 1,00,000 per annum from the next day to the date of the original sentence, and the amount of KRW 25 percent per annum from the next day to the date of the full payment.
The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant in both the first and second trials, and a declaration of provisional execution (the plaintiff 1 extended the claim in the trial).
On July 9, 1988, Nonparty 1 leased 1/2 of the land surface of the above building from the Defendant as of the date on which it was owned by the Defendant, and Nonparty 1 operated the business of removal from the name of the Defendant, “(title omitted)”, and there is no dispute between the parties, and subparagraph 1-1 (No. 6-2 ( Indictment), 3 (Protocol of Public Prosecution), 6 (3 (Protocol of Public Prosecution), 7 (Field of Public Prosecution), 8 (Protocol of Public Prosecution), 2, 6-9 (Written Diagnosis of Diagnosis) of evidence No. 1 and 2, and the testimony and testimony of Nonparty 2 and the witness of the lower court, and part of Non-Party 1, 3 and Non-Party 4’s testimony on the wall surface of the above building, which are contrary to the purport of the oral argument, are removed from the Central Line No. 1988, Aug. 17, 198.
The plaintiffs claim that the plaintiffs are liable for damages caused by the accident caused by the defects in the installation or preservation of the above publicity sign, which is the owner of the above publicity sign, as the above publicity sign, was installed by the defendant and leased to the non-party 1. Thus, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above publicity sign, etc. is a structure owned by the defendant. Rather, if the above publicity sign, etc. is no dispute over the establishment, each statement of the evidence No. 6-10,12 (Examination of Evidence) of the non-party 6, and the testimony and trial witness of non-party 2, non-party 5, and one part of the testimony of the non-party 1 (except the part which is not trusted after the testimony of the non-party 5, the non-party 5, the non-party 1's witness's testimony and the non-party 5, and the non-party 1's assertion that the above publicity sign, etc. were newly installed on the wall surface of the above building by the defendant 1/2 and it was transferred to the non-party 1's counter-party 18.
In addition, the plaintiffs are the owners of the above new buildings and the above new building's construction design and completion inspection. The owners of the above new buildings and the above new building's new building's new building's new building's new building's new building's new building's new building's new building's new building's new building's new building's new building's new building's new building's new building's new building's new building's new building's new building's new building's new building's 1984 main floor was used exclusively, unlike the above construction's construction design and completion inspection's previous building's previous building's previous building's previous building's previous building's new building's new building's new building's 5th new building's previous building's new building's new building's new building's new building's new building's new building's new building's 5th new building's previous building's new building's new building's new building's 5th new building's previous building's new building's new building's new building'
Finally, the plaintiffs claim that the plaintiffs are liable for damages since they neglected to direct and supervise the non-party 1 to take safety measures against the above propaganda beacon installed by the non-party 1 as the owner of the above building, and the accident of this case occurred. However, the fact that the non-party 1 was the owner of the building cannot be deemed to have the responsibility to direct and supervise the ancillary facilities installed by the non-party 1.
Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case, which is premised on the defendant's liability for damages, is without merit, and therefore it is dismissed. The judgment of the court below is just and the plaintiffs' appeal against this conclusion is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of appeal cost.
Judges Jinsung (Presiding Judge)