(영문) 광주고법 1988. 12. 28. 선고 88나3153 제1민사부판결 : 상고[손해배상(기)][하집1988(3.4),66]
Cases where the management obligation period has expired and the user liability of the owner of multi-family housing (multi-family housing) is denied;
In the event of a death accident caused by the falling falling of the multi-family housing (multi-family housing), even if the owner of the building manages the multi-family housing for convenience even after the expiration of the management obligation period as a project undertaker prescribed by the Housing Construction Promotion Act, the owner of the building is the management body prescribed by the Multi-Family Residential Building Act, so the owner of the building
Article 23, Article 24, Article 25, Article 38 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act, Article 8 of the Decree on the Management of Multi-Family Housing
Plaintiff 1 and two others
Defendant
Gwangju District Court of the first instance (87Gahap810)
1. The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is revoked and the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to this revoked part are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against all of the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of 22,250,846 won, the amount of 18,624,126 won, the amount of 12,749,417 won to the plaintiff 3, and the amount of 5% per annum from June 9, 1987 to the date of a sentence of the original judgment, and the amount of 25% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.
The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.
The same shall apply to the order.
On June 9, 1987, at around 17:30, Nonparty 1 died from internal blood transfusion, etc. at the 06:00 on the following day from the 6th floor, while Nonparty 1 was engaged in the work in which Nonparty 2 moved in the ndrodra operated by Nonparty 2 in Seo-gu, Seo-gu (detailed address and apartment water omitted), Gwangju, Seo-gu, Seoul, the fact that the ndrodra fells on the ground from the 6th floor and died from the string of the 06:00 on the following day, there is no dispute between the parties. According to each of the statements in the evidence No. 1, No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3 of the above deceased without dispute over each establishment, Plaintiff 1 is the wife of the above deceased, and Plaintiff 2 and 3 can be recognized as the facts that are the children of the deceased, and there is no other counter-proof.
Therefore, the plaintiffs are the owners of the above building, and since the accident occurred due to the negligence of the non-party 2 who operated the above building, the defendant is not only the employers of the above building but also the owners of the above difficulties who are responsible for compensating the plaintiffs for all damages due to the defect in the construction and maintenance of the building, the above office building's 1st (the construction report and the certificate of construction completion) and Eul's 1 to 56 (the register of the above office building's) are not the owners of the above building, and since the defendant's office building's new office building's new office building's new office building's new office building's new office building's new office building's new office building's new office building's new office building's new office building's new office building's new office building's new office building's new office building's new office building's new office building's new office building's new office building's new office building's new office building's new office building's new office building's new office building's new building's new office building's new office's new building'
Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed because there is no need to examine further and there is no reason to dismiss them. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below which partially accepted the plaintiffs' claims is unfair, so the part against the defendant in the judgment below is revoked and the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to this revoked part are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96, 89, and 93 of the Civil Procedure Act to the bearing of the costs of lawsuit.
Judges Cho Jae-sik (Presiding Judge)