The fact-finding or the ratio of the amount of damages under Article 765 of the Civil Act and Article 3 of the Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by Negligence belongs to the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court unless the principle of equity is deemed to be remarkably unreasonable (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da40454 delivered on May 10, 1996, etc.).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below reduced the liability for damages to be borne by the defendant to 50% of the damages suffered by the plaintiffs, considering all the circumstances shown in the records and arguments of this case, including the cause and scale of the fire of this case, the target and degree of the damage, the cause of the spread of combustion and damage, the defendant's effort to prevent the expansion of damage, etc., including the fact that the specific cause of the fire of this case was not revealed, the defendant factory was regularly inspected, the safety inspection was not discovered, the fact that there was no particular circumstance at the time of inspection, and the goods

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below's fact-finding or its determination on the grounds for mitigation of liability for damages as above is just and acceptable to the extent that it is not considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity, and there is no violation of the misapprehension of legal principles as to mitigation of liability for damages, as alleged in the

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Plaintiffs 2, 4, and 5

In a lawsuit seeking compensation for damages due to a tort, the court may determine the amount of damage which is the scope of proximate causal relation by comprehensively taking into account all the relevant indirect facts, including the relationship between the parties revealed by the result of examination of evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, the background leading up to the occurrence of a tort and property damage, the nature of the damage, and all the circumstances after the occurrence of the damage, etc. (see Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da6951, 6968, Jun. 24, 2004; 2004Da48508, Nov. 24, 2005, etc.).

In light of the above legal principles and records, so long as it seems possible to calculate the specific business losses suffered by the above plaintiffs due to the fire of this case, the court below should first give the above plaintiffs the opportunity to prove the amount of damages, and if the above plaintiffs are negligent in proving the amount of damages or lack of proof, the court below should deliberate on the specific amount of damages by urging the above plaintiffs to prove the amount of damages, etc., and if it is impossible to know the specific amount of damages

Nevertheless, the court below held that the above plaintiffs' business losses cannot be accepted without urging or examining the above plaintiffs to prove specific business losses solely on the ground that they did not prove specific business losses. However, since the above plaintiffs' business losses are acknowledged to have suffered losses due to business failure for a considerable period of time due to the fire of this case, such business losses should be considered as favorable reasons when reducing the amount of damages to the above plaintiffs, and the amount of damages to the above plaintiffs was reduced to 50% of the total damages suffered by them. Determination of the total amount of damages to be arbitrarily determined by the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of damages, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. As to the first ground for appeal

Article 750 of the former Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by Negligence (wholly amended by Act No. 9648 of May 8, 2009; hereinafter “former Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Negligence”) provides that “The provisions of Article 750 of the Civil Act shall apply only when there is gross negligence in the case of fire caused by fire.” However, the Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Act No. 9648 of May 8, 2009 (hereinafter “former Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Act No. 9648)” Article 1 of the same Act provides that “The purpose of this Act is to prescribe special cases of Article 765 of the Civil Act on the Reduction of Compensation for Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Fire by Fire by Fire Caused by Act.”

As above, unlike the former Fire Liability Act, the amended Fire Liability Act only provides special provisions on reduction of the amount of damages, but does not impose any provision that limits the establishment of liability for damages. Thus, whether the possessor or the owner of a structure is liable for damages on a fire caused by a defect in the installation and preservation of a structure shall be determined pursuant to the provisions of the Civil Act, unless otherwise provided for in other Acts. Therefore, in cases where there is a proximate causal relation between the defect in the installation and preservation of a structure and the damage therefrom as well as the liability for damages on a fire caused by a defect in the installation and preservation of a structure, if there is a direct causal relation between the defect in the installation and preservation of a structure, and unless the fire is caused by gross negligence, the person liable for damages on the part that was burned from the fire may be reduced the amount of damages pursuant to Article 3 of the amended Fire Liability Act.

In light of the above legal principles, with respect to the fire of this case that occurred after August 31, 2007, the court below can apply Article 758 (1) of the Civil Act as to the liability for damages caused by a fire directly due to a defect in the installation and preservation of a structure, as well as the liability for damages caused by the fire. However, it is just that the court below's decision that the amount of damages for the burning portion may be reduced is justified, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the interpretation and application of Article 758 (1) of the Civil Act, Articles 1 and 2 of the amended Liability Act, as alleged in the ground for appeal.

B. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3

The defect in the installation or preservation of a structure under Article 758(1) of the Civil Act refers to a state in which a structure fails to meet safety requirements ordinarily required according to its use. In determining whether such safety requirements are met, it shall be determined on the basis of whether the installer or custodian of the structure has fulfilled his/her duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the risk of the structure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da24499, Jan. 14, 2005). Further, an accident due to a defect in the installation or preservation of a structure does not mean that only the defect in the installation or preservation of the structure causes the damage, and even if the defect in the installation or preservation of the structure occurs in concurrence with the act of another party or the act of a victim, it shall be deemed that the damage was caused by the defect in the installation or preservation of the structure, so long as the defect in the construction or preservation becomes one of the joint causes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da134343, Apr.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, after compiling the admitted evidence, the court below found the facts as stated in its reasoning. The defendant factory should have taken measures to prevent the spread of fire by using the outer wall, etc. of the factory building as a fireproof structure or installing an automatic fire extinguishing device such as sprinking inside the factory, etc. However, despite the fact that the defendant factory was placed with inflammable material, so as to prevent the spread of fire, it is highly likely that combustion would be rapidly expanded at the time of a fire, the outer wall was installed with a sandd position panel, and there was a defect in the installation and preservation of facilities such as spuger, etc., and due to such defect, there was a defect in the installation and maintenance of facilities such as 603,110,235 won to the plaintiff Geumm chemical company, 266,885,804 won, and 657,677,959 won, and 723,912,070 won to the plaintiff 4, 301,400 won.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to structure liability, violation of the rules of evidence, or incomplete deliberation as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against plaintiffs 2, 4, and 5 concerning business losses is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The remaining appeals by the above plaintiffs, the appeals by plaintiffs 2, 4, and 5, and all appeals by the defendants are dismissed. The costs of appeal between plaintiffs 2, 3, and the defendant are assessed against each party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-dae (Presiding Justice)