2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10. J.

11. K;

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

14.N

15. 0

16.P

2. Busan Jin-gu.

0

A person shall be appointed.

0

-

c

8. V:

2. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendant Busan Jin-gu and the remaining claims against the defendant Busan Busan Metropolitan City, Q, R, S, T, U, and V are dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, 40% of the portion arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant Busan Metropolitan City, Q, R, S, T, U, and V shall be borne by the plaintiffs, and the remainder shall be borne by the defendant Busan Metropolitan City, Q, R, S, T, U, and V, and the part arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant Busan Metropolitan City shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

H Each 245, 693, 355 won, Plaintiff I and J respectively 194,078, 537 won, Plaintiff L and M

208,070,080 won, 416,140,160 won, 3,000,000 won, 416, 160 won, Plaintiffs C, E, F, K, N, andO respectively.

and 5% per annum for each of the above money from May 5, 2012 to the date of the final service of the copy of the complaint in this case, and

D. The payment of 20% interest per annum shall be made from the following day to the day of full payment.

A. On May 5, 2012: around 52, a fire (hereinafter referred to as “the instant fire”) occurred inside the 3th floor (area 3,987 square meters; hereinafter referred to as “the instant building”) of the 2nd underground floor and the 6th floor above the ground located in Busan Jin-gu, Busan (hereinafter referred to as “X-gu”).

B. Defendant Q and R owned the share of the instant building and its site 4/5, 5, 1/5, respectively. Defendant S, T, U, and V leased the third floor of the instant building from Defendant Q Q and operated the instant main points. [Defendant U and V invested approximately KRW 225,000,000 in each of the above buildings, and Defendant Q and V loaned the name of Defendant S and installed the facilities for the use of the said third floor to the amusement facilities for the second class neighborhood living in the Busan-gu Office as the president of the business, and subsequently, Defendant Q and R reported the operation of the instant main points from around July 200 to June 2010 to the instant main place of the instant building. Defendant Q and V was working for the instant main place of the instant building from around 200,000 to around 300,000 U.S.’s business, following the Plaintiff’s business permission to operate the instant third class of the building.

C. The main point of this case was composed of 24 emergency exit around June 2009 at the time of permission to change the purpose of use of amusement facilities; 3 emergency exit [the emergency exit adjacent to the main office connected to indoor statistics group; the emergency exit adjacent to the main office entrance connected to the main office statistics group; and the auxiliary room located adjacent to the main entrance and exit (the walls of the attached office are composed of noncombustible materials; the door is composed of a door with heat, exhauster, and exhaustr, and the door is cut off; in fact, the above accessory room was relatively clean without any damage; hereinafter referred to as 1, 2, 3 emergency exit]; 24 emergency exit from the main office of this case; 3 emergency exit from the main office of this case; 6 emergency exit from the main office of this case; 1, 2009 and 6 emergency exit from the main office of this case; 1, 600 emergency exit from the main office of this case; 2, 300 emergency exit from the main office of this case).

D. At the time of the instant fire, customers were included in 14, 15, 16, 19, and 25 as indicated in the Appendix Map No. 14, 15, 16, 19, and 25 (at the time of the instant fire, 5, 2, 16, 8, 25, 12, 14, 14, and 14, 14, 15, and 16, 19, 19, and 19, 5, and 19, 5, and 19, 19, and 19, 5,000 and 19,00,000 and 16,000,000,000 were no more than 19,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000).

E. On May 5, 2012, the instant fire was completely extinguishing at around 22:02 on the same day by fire officers dispatched after receiving a fire report at around 52:0, and the direct private person of the deceased as a result of the fire investigation was presumed to be a physical death due to smoke and inhalement of toxic gases.

F. The National Institute of Scientific Investigation presumed that the instant fire was spread out at the end of the opposite end of the entrance of the 24th page as stated in the attached Form, and that there was a high possibility that the instant fire might have been spread out due to the explosion damage caused by the explosion damage between lines at the electric wires installed above the ceiling of the said point.

G. Defendant T, U, and V were indicted for a violation of the Fire-Fighting Systems Act in relation to the instant fire (hereinafter “Fire-Fighting Systems Act”) and were negligent in performing the duty to manage and check electric facilities, etc. within the main points of the instant case, the duty to install and maintain various fire-fighting-related facilities, and the duty to protect customers from disasters such as fire, etc. on the ground that they were negligent; Defendant S was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for a reason that the manager and possessor of the main points of the instant case corresponding to a specific fire-fighting object under the Fire-Fighting Systems Act, who were the manager and possessor of the third emergency unit, and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for a reason that he was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment for a period of eight years for a reason that he was able to receive customers from the third emergency unit under the Fire-Fighting Systems Act; Defendant T, U.V., and Defendant T, V appealed appealed (Seoul District Court Decision 201Da4339, May 29, 201).

21. Final and conclusive.

H. Plaintiff A and B were the parents of the network A, Plaintiff C were the deceased’s sentence, Plaintiff D was the father of the network AB, Plaintiff D was the deceased’s mother of the network AB ( Plaintiff D was the parent of the network, Plaintiff R, R, T, U, and V, and notified the above Defendants of the transfer of consolation money claim related to the fire of this case by delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case. The AI requested to the Busan Family Court 2012J 1740, and received a judgment to accept the waiver of inheritance from the above court on June 25, 2012. The Plaintiff E and F were the parents of the network AB, Plaintiff R, Plaintiff R 1, Plaintiff RJ’s father, Plaintiff RM, Plaintiff RJ’s father, and Plaintiff RJ’s father, Plaintiff 2, and Plaintiff RJ’s father, Plaintiff RJ’s parent, Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 2, Plaintiff RJMM’s heir, Plaintiff 2, and Plaintiff RJ’s mother of the deceased.

[Ground of recognition] The whole evidence of Gap 1, Eul 2-1, Eul 2-3, Eul 2-1, Eul 2-1, Eul 2-3, Eul 2-1, Eul 2-1, Eul 2-1, Eul 2-1, Eul 2, Eul 2-1, Eul 3-1, Eul 2-1, Eul 2, Eul 2-1, Eul 24-12, Eul 25-3, Eul 25-1, Eul 27-1, Eul 17, Eul 18, Eul 19-1, 20, Eul 20-1, Eul 2, Eul 2-1, Eul 2, Eul 5-1, Eul 27-1, Eul 27-1, Eul 27-1, Eul 5-1, Eul 27-1, Eul 27-1, Eul 5-1, Eul 27-1, Eul 27-1, Eul 27-1, Eul 27-1, Eul

2. Relevant statutes;

The Fire-Fighting Facility Act, the Special Act on the Safety Control of Publicly Used Establishments (hereinafter referred to as the "Public Use Establishments Act"), the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the main provisions related to the instant case in the Framework Act on Fire Services are as shown in the attached Form.

3. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Determination as to the claim against Defendant S, T, U, and V

1) The facts of recognition are as follows: Defendant S, U, and V met the number of emergency exits required by the relevant laws, such as the Building Act, even with only three emergency exits (the first and second emergency exitss are located on the side of the main entrance, in consideration of the safety of customers in the event of a fire, and the third emergency exit was established by soliciting the Defendant S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S.

B) In addition, Defendant T, U, and V installed a separate door on the passage via the second emergency exit around June 201, and used it for the purpose of warehouse, such as storing alcoholic beverages, etc. in the space between the said door and the second emergency exit. Following the construction of the said door, the “emergency light, etc. installed inside the second emergency exit” inside the instant main shop was not seen.

C) Each room of the instant main station was installed with a shelter guidance, but all of the 1,2, and 3 emergency exits are marked as being maintained normally in the escape guidance map, and in relation to the method of evacuation in case of a fire, the 1, 2, and 3 emergency exit and the main entrance and exit are instructed to be evacuated according to a total of four evacuation paths.

D) On the date of the occurrence of the instant fire: 20:50 on the day of the instant fire, Defendant T opened an entrance door No. 24 as indicated in the attached Form No. 24, which is close to the Karter, and acquired agricultural smoke, and discovered that flames were infected, the Defendant T immediately sought a hand-on fire alarm device installed in each room and corridor, or search for each room with customers, without notifying the employees AK of the fire, and without taking any measures following the failure to take any measures. After the passage of approximately two minutes, the head office inside the instant main office was evacuated in the direction of the main entrance and exit, and even after the lapse of about two minutes, it was completely impossible to identify the front side of the Kashed due to the postponement from the said 24th office.

E) Defendant T, U, and V did not perform all necessary fire training, such as fire extinguishing, notification, and training leading ordinary workers to a safe place, and portable emergency lighting, location and method of use of emergency bells, etc. At the time of the fire. At the time of the fire, the main points of the fire in this case were the work of employees AK, AL, and AM, etc., but among them, AK and AL evacuated to the outside of the mixed without taking measures such as disseminating the fire or guiding the escape direction, “after AM became aware of the occurrence of the fire in this case,” and “IM did not see the fact of the fire in this case,” and “IM did not take the direction of the escape of the customers,” and “IM did not take the direction of evacuation from 25 days to 120,000 visitors, and did not take the direction of evacuation to the outside of the entrance of the deceased, and did not take the direction of evacuation to the outside of the public.”

F) On November 7, 201, no later than six months prior to the occurrence of the instant fire on the second floor of the instant building, a fire by a U.S. fire occurred on November 7, 201. At the instant main point, there is a problem in electric installations, such as electric power failure, overload, and a concurrent blocking system for cutting off.

Defendant T, U, and V did not take any measures such as investigating, checking, or supplementing the cause.

G) Defendant T, U, and V kept portable emergency lights only for 10 rooms among 26 rooms of the instant main points (five of them did not have a sound map), but did not have such portable emergency lights, etc. on the 19th page and 25 pages as indicated in the attached drawing that the deceased occurred (AO, which was in the 25th page as indicated in the attached drawing at the time of the instant fire, used the front line function instead of portable emergency lights in the process of escape instead of portable emergency lights, etc.). Furthermore, since no warning sound was sounding at the time of the instant fire, the said Defendants did not properly manage the emergency alarm system to ensure the automatic alarm at the time of the occurrence of the fire, and installed the emergency alarm system at the time of the occurrence of the fire, and installed the emergency alarm system at the time of the instant fire so that customers do not have any hindrance to the operation of the emergency alarm system at the time of the emergency alarm.

[Ground of recognition] The judgment below is without dispute, Gap evidence 18, Gap evidence 20-8 to 10, Gap evidence 21, Gap evidence 22-2, Gap evidence 24-1 to 3, Gap evidence 26-1, Gap evidence 27-1 to 3, Gap evidence 27-28, Gap evidence 29-1, Eul evidence 29-2, Eul evidence 29-5, Gap evidence 29-1, 2, and 5, Gap evidence 21-2)

According to the above facts, Defendant S, T, U, and V, a person who jointly operates the main points of this case, caused the death of the deceased in this case by negligence, such as installation, maintenance, and management of fire safety facilities and evacuation facilities that could minimize human damage if a fire occurs within the main points of this case, inspection of electric facilities, etc. inside the main points of this case, removal of the cause of the fire, and thorough education of the employees on the method of coping with the fire, etc., and protection of the passengers from the emergency situation, despite the duty of care to protect them from the emergency situation such as fire, etc., Defendant S, T, U, and V, a person who is the owner and manager of the main points of this case, is liable for damages suffered by the deceased under Articles 760 (1) and 75 (1) and 750 of the Civil Act as the deceased's bereaved family members, who are the aforementioned plaintiffs, as the joint owners of the main points of this case, for the purpose of increasing the operating profit of the 2,3 emergency exits installed inside the main points of this case.

B. Determination as to the claim against Defendant Q and R

1) The facts of recognition are as follows: (a) AP was employed by Defendant Q and R as the Director of the Management Office of the instant building; (b) performed the overall management of the building from March 2003; (c) was offered to request the said Defendants to work as the former manager of the fire-fighting site of the said building; and (d) around June 2003, the Korea Fire Safety Association acquired a fire safety certificate of class 2 and became a fire safety controller’s duty concurrently as a fire safety controller. AP goes to work every day for 7:30 p.m. and goes to work for 7:30 p.m. and was paid every month from Defendant Q Q. AP was paid KRW 1.20,000 per month. The AP received the overall duty of fire safety controller from Defendant Q to perform fire-fighting inspection; and (d) reported it to Defendant Q and other owners of the instant building; and (e) was subject to the overall duty of fire-fighting management of the instant building to inspect the instant building as an appropriate gas safety manager.

B) Nevertheless, AP, as an entertainment drinking house, did not thoroughly inspect the entrance part of the main point of this case where a large number of casualties is anticipated at the time of fire, and it did not discover that the main room of the said main point was closed only three years after the closure of the closure of the 3rd district, and it did not confirm the fact that the 3rd district was properly installed at each room of the said main point. Moreover, AP, despite the fact that the 3rd district was not properly installed at each room of the said main point, found that the 2nd district office was in danger of fire, and did not check whether the 2nd district office was corrected after giving attention to the business owners and employees of the Defendant T, etc. In addition, AP was installed in the passage leading to the 2nd district through the self-inspection and loaded alcoholic beverages, etc. in the space between the said emergency exit and the above door, and did not take any active measures such as the removal of the 3rd district office's fire-fighting objects and the removal of the 3rd district office's function.

C) Also, as fire safety controller of the instant building, AP did not systematically conduct fire-fighting education or training against workers in the instant building. Accordingly, Defendant T and employees did not properly cope with the instant fire, such as early extinguishing the fire, evacuation of each customer, etc., and did not properly cope with the fire, thereby causing many casualties.

[Grounds for Recognition] AP negligence in relation to the fire of this case, whether there was no dispute, Gap evidence 18, Gap evidence 20-8 to 10, Gap evidence 21, Gap evidence 24-1, Gap evidence 26-2, Gap evidence 27-4, 6-10, Gap evidence 29-1, 29-2, 5, Eul evidence 6-1, Eul evidence 6-2, 6-2, and Eul evidence 6-1, 2-2, and all pleadings

AP, as a fire safety controller of the entire building of this case, failed to find out the fact that two emergency exits inside the main station of this case are not properly equipped, maintained, and managed, and where there is any defect in light equipment that can safely evacuate customers when a fire, such as emergency exit, portable emergency illumination, video sound breaker, etc. inside the main station of this case, and take appropriate measures, such as ordering correction and supplementation or informing the chief of the fire station of the failure to properly implement the order. Although there is a duty of care to thoroughly conduct fire education and training for occupants or workers in the building of this case, the fire inspection has to be carried out, and if there is a duty of care to thoroughly implement the fire safety education and training, it has not been functioned as soon as possible, and the fact that portable emergency illumination, etc. have not been properly equipped, but has not been properly equipped with the video sound breaker by the main owner of the above main office of this case, but has not been operated for the workers in this case or the workers in the building of this case.

B) Whether there exists causation between AP’s negligence on the instant fire and the Plaintiffs’ damages

If the attached room maintains its form as the front room connected to the third emergency exit, and the deceased could easily recognize that the above attached room was a place where the third emergency exit could have been evacuated in the event of a fire, the door of the third emergency exit was maintained at an open condition, and the contact-oriented bridge was also properly provided, the deceased in the 25th attached drawing near the attached room would have been able to escape through the third emergency exit or wait safely until the firemen get rescued. The second emergency exit does not have a door before the second emergency exit, so it is possible to easily check signs, etc. indicating the emergency exit within the main room of this case, and if there were no things attached to the passage leading to the second emergency exit, it could not be ruled out that the deceased escaped in the second emergency exit direction according to the escape guide attached to each room, and the employees could have been seen to have been able to have been able to promptly and promptly informed the deceased's normal operation of the fire and safety control device of this case by taking full account of the fire evacuation and fire warning system of this case, and the employees could have been operated in a normal way.

C) Whether Defendant Q and R’s employer liability was established

In order to establish the employer's liability, the relationship of use and use, that is, the relationship of actual command and supervision, in which the employer and the employee are engaged in a certain business, and if the person employed by another person to engage in a certain business executes another's business according to the direction of the other person, the person employed by the other person has a relation of use and use.

Defendant Q and R, the owner of the building of this case, set its working hours and gave his benefits to them, and granted them duties as a fire safety manager and fire safety controller of the entire building of this case. As seen earlier, the fact that AP was ordered by Defendant Q Q and R in relation to fire safety control of the building of this case, and reported to Defendant Q and R in relation to fire safety control of the entire building of this case, including the above main points, is an interested person of the main point of this case, which is a specific fire-fighting object. In light of this, it is reasonable to deem that Defendant Q and R are in a position to specifically direct and supervise AP by having them engage in the fire safety control of the building of this case, which is their own affairs, using AP, and have been in actual control and supervision over AP. Accordingly, it is reasonable to deem that Defendant Q, R and AP had a relation of use and use.

As seen earlier, Defendant Q, and R, as an employer of AP, are liable to compensate the Plaintiffs, who are the deceased and their bereaved family members, for damages caused by the instant fire, pursuant to Article 756(1) of the Civil Act, as seen earlier, due to their occupational negligence.

3) As to Defendant Q and R’s assertion, Defendant Q and R exercised considerable care to appoint AP and supervise its affairs, and even if considerable attention was paid, it constitutes a case where damage was incurred, and thus, Defendant Q and R’s assertion is exempted from liability pursuant to the proviso of Article 756(1) of the Civil Act. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, the above assertion by Defendant Q and R is without merit.

B) In addition, Defendant Q and R applied the Public Use Establishments Act as a special law of the Fire-Fighting System Act with respect to the safety management of disasters, such as fire in publicly used establishments, such as this case’s main points. The duty to establish, maintain, and inspect escape facilities and safety facilities, such as the duty to conduct fire safety education for employees under the said Public Use Establishments, emergency exits, portable emergency lighting lights, video sound breaker, etc. (Articles 8(1) and (2), 9(1), 11, 13(1), and 14 of the Public Use Establishments Act are not Defendant S, T, U, and V’s duties, who are a public-used business owner under the Multi-Use Establishments Act, but are not Defendant Q and R’s duties. In relation to the above duties, P argues argues that it is not Defendant Q and R’s employees.

In general, the principle that the special law takes precedence over the general law is applicable to cases where a law, which is a written law of the same type, conflicts with each other. Whether the law conflicts with each other or not shall be determined by comprehensively examining the legislative purpose, scope, and provisions of the law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da32564, Nov. 27, 198; 98Da32564, Nov. 27, 199). Since the Public Use Establishments Act does not stipulate in detail the appointment and duty of a fire safety controller, such as Article 20 of the Fire-Fighting Facilities Act, the provisions of the Public Use Establishments Act cited by Defendant Q and R cannot be deemed as a special provision excluding the application in relation to Article 20 of the Fire-Fighting Facilities Act. Accordingly, Article 20 of the Fire-Fighting Facilities Act can also be applied even if the above provisions of the Public Use Establishments Act are applicable. Therefore, this part of the allegation by Defendant Q and

C. Determination on the claim against Defendant Busan Metropolitan City

1) The fact of recognition is found) Busan Fire-Fighting Unit after the main point of this case was permitted to change the purpose of use for entertainment taverns.

11. On October 15, 201, and August 9, 2011, two fire-fighting officers had each fire-fighting officer conduct a fire-fighting test on the instant building on three occasions over three occasions. On the other hand, the said fire-fighting officers conducted a fire-fighting test mainly on the spot inspection and a sample inspection to confirm only several rooms with respect to whether the basic fire-fighting systems, such as fire extinguishers, and emergency exits, interfered with escape equipment, without having all kinds of documents or drawings related to the instant building on the ground that the fire-fighting test material is so short as to lack of inspectors and the inconvenience of customers due to the nature of the entertainment drinking house business.

B) As a result, on October 15, 2010, the above fire officers confirmed only “in the self-fighting inspection of one’s own fire-fighting on the part of indoor fire hydrant inhalers Eul,” and on August 9, 201, “in the self-fighting inspection of one’s own fire-fighting on the part of the receiver and the receiver no longer found the closure of the second and third emergency districts.”

[Ground of recognition] The existence or absence of any dispute, Gap evidence 20-5, Eul evidence 20-9-11, Eul evidence 23-2, Eul evidence 25-4, Eul evidence 26-3-7, Gap evidence 28, Eul evidence 29-1, 2, 5, Eul evidence 8, Eul evidence 9, Eul evidence 10-1, 2, Eul evidence 16-1, 2, Eul evidence 17, Eul evidence 18-1, 2, Eul evidence 40-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 26-2, Eul evidence 28, Eul evidence 28-2)

The fire-fighting system law regulates specific fire-fighting objects, multiple-use business places, fire-fighting objects subject to order of repair, and imposes the manager the duty of management, while it imposes the authority and duty to manage and supervise them to the director general of fire-fighting headquarters or the chief of fire station.

The main point of this case is an entertainment tavern, which is a specific fire-fighting object, publicly-used establishment, and a fire-fighting object subject to an order for repair as prescribed by the Fire-Fighting System Act. The fire-fighting officers belonging to the Busan Fire-Fighting Station, who are under the direction and supervision of the head of Busan Fire-Fighting Station, are obliged to carry out a fire-fighting inspection of the building in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, with documents and equipment necessary for the appointment and performance of duties of fire safety controllers on the building in the presence of the building owner or fire safety controller, conduct an inspection of matters concerning fire prevention measures, matters concerning fire prevention measures, various fire-fighting systems, etc., and guide and supervise them to prevent fires or to prepare facilities or measures to minimize loss, such as human life damage, if a fire occurs

The fire officers belonging to the Busan Fire Station shall visit the above building without drawing in violation of the duty of care, and visit fire extinguisherss, emergency exits, etc. and escape facilities, etc., such as fire extinguisherss and emergency exits, etc., and they shall be limited to the formal inspection centered on the appearance of the above site and sample inspection, etc., and the main points of this case exist at the time of permission to change the purpose of use as entertainment taverns, and also indicate evacuation maps attached to each room of the above main points. In the case of the 3 emergency district, the closure of the 2 and 3 emergency exits was not discovered, and the fire officers belonging to the Busan Fire Station did not take necessary measures such as issuing repair orders. The negligence is recognized for fire officers belonging to the Busan Fire Station (the defendant Busan District Court is impossible to check all kinds of documents such as fire-fighting objects and to check the building in detail, and the fire officers belonging to the Busan Fire Station are not responsible for the above improvement of human resources due to the lack of sufficient working conditions, and thus, there is no need to take any further measures to employ fire officers.

The reason is that the circumstance can not be the reason for the exemption.

B) Whether there exists a causal relationship between the negligence of fire officers belonging to the Busan Fire Station on the instant fire and the plaintiffs' damage to the fire of this case

Considering the fact that the attached room is a place where the deceased can evacuate in the event of a fire, the 3 emergency exit could easily be recognized as a place where the 3 emergency exit could have been connected to the 3 emergency exit, and that the 3 emergency exit door was maintained at an open condition, and that the 25 emergency exit can also be properly equipped with the 3 emergency exit, the 3 emergency exit could have been safe waiting until the deceased's escape through the 3 emergency exit or the 2 emergency exit could have been saved, as the 3 emergency exit was not installed before the 2 emergency exit, so the causal link between the 2 emergency exit and the 2 emergency exit and the 2 emergency exit could not be easily confirmed within the 3 emergency exit and the 3 emergency exit of the deceased's fire officers' negligence could not be excluded from the 2 emergency exit as well as the 3 emergency exit of the above fire officers' negligence on the ground that the 2 emergency exit and the 25 emergency exit fire officers' negligence did not affect the 2 emergency exit of the deceased, it is reasonable to view that the 3 emergency fire officers's negligence and the 2 emergency exit.

C) Accordingly, Defendant Busan Metropolitan City, as an employer of fire officers under its jurisdiction, is liable for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, who are the deceased and their bereaved family members due to the instant fire that occurred in violation of the Fire-Fighting Systems Act and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes when fire officers perform their duties under Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act

D. Limitation on liability

The scope of liability for damages caused by a joint tort shall be determined by evaluating the overall act of the perpetrator in relation to the victim, and the amount of the compensation shall be borne by each tortfeasor for the total amount of the compensation, and one of the perpetrator shall be different.

Even if the degree of tort processing is minor compared to the one who committed the tort, the scope of the tortfeasor's liability cannot be limited to part of the amount of compensation determined as above in relation to the victim. On the other hand, in the case of joint tort, even if the court's negligence ratio of each joint tortfeasor differs from each other, the victim's negligence shall not be individually assessed as the negligence of each joint tortfeasor, and all of them shall be assessed as the whole (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da32999, Jun. 14, 2007, etc.).

The case returned to this case and the defendant Busan Metropolitan City, Q, R, S, T, U, and V are liable for damages suffered by each of the plaintiffs as joint tortfeasor. However, in light of the following circumstances known by the aforementioned facts, the main responsibility for the occurrence of the fire of this case and the death of the deceased lies in defendant S, T, U, and V, and in the case of the 19th and 25th of the annexed Form No. 25, other customers other than the deceased among the customers in the same room, who were in the same room other than the deceased were successful in escape through their main entrance, they were found to have been aware of the remaining surrounding circumstances and failed to escape safely or escape safely. In light of the fact that the deceased's error appears to have caused or expanded damages caused by the fire of this case, and the fire officers' poor working conditions, it is inappropriate for the defendants to be held liable for damages by the above defendants in light of the purport of the damage compensation system as a whole.

4. Scope of liability for damages

(a) lost income for the net AA;

The loss of daily income suffered by the deceased A from the instant fire shall be calculated as the present price at the time of the instant fire pursuant to the Family Francing Calculation Act, which deducts intermediate interest according to the ratio of 5/12% per month as follows, based on the facts of recognition and evaluation as follows: (a) Gender: A (2) The age of male Qir (3) : The age of 23 years and 7 months at the time of the instant fire: (4) the age of 5 years and 5 years (a) the retirement age of 5 years (5) : the age of 35: the deceased A was calculated as the average of 10 won and 35 months (a) the retirement age of 5 years and 3 years: (b) the age of 5 years and 50 won; (b) the deceased AR was calculated as the average of 15 months and 40 months before the instant fire; and (c) the amount of 30 years and 15 months before the death of 5 months; and (d) the amount of 15 months and 35 months before the instant fire.

(B) Until a person reaches the age of 60 who is the maximum working age after the age of 55: The amount equivalent to the daily wage of an ordinary worker corresponding to urban daily workers can be obtained every month. Since one day wage for an ordinary worker in the investigation report on the actual status of wages in the construction industry during the first half of 2012 is KRW 75,60, the daily wage is calculated as 22 days, and the number of monthly working days is calculated as 1,663,376 won ( = 75,608 x 22 days) calculated as 22 days and the daily income is calculated as 1,663,376 won ( = 75,608 x 22 days) calculated as 1/3 (7) maximum working age of the net A: the last day of the year in which the age of 55 reaches the age of 60, and the maximum working age after the year reaches the age of 60, and 22th each

[Ground ground for recognition] A/2, Gap evidence 12-1, Gap evidence 13, Gap evidence 14, Gap evidence 15, and calculation (1) (1), from May 5, 2012 to December 31, 2043, 379 1,783, 576 x 2/3 x 2270, 016, 759 won (turines below won) x 270, 759 won (turfs below won) 2, 204 to September 25, 204, 1, 63, 376, 208 x 304 x 408 x 405 x 205 x 404 x 504 x 504 x 204 x 505 x 205 - 405 x 205 ;

(c) Total sum: 284, 337, 317 won ( – 270, 016, 759 won + 14, 320, 558 won) retirement allowances in one room;

The deceased AA entered the R on April 5, 201. The retirement allowance to be received at the time of the fire of this case shall be calculated at the present price at the time of the fire of this case, and the amount of 20,656,54 won (in cases of deductions of retirement allowance at the time of the fire of this case = 22,58,751 won - 1,932,207 won) shall be deemed as retirement allowance of 30 days for each year of employment when a worker continues to work for more than one year and retires (in accordance with the rules of employment of R, the amount equivalent to "30 days of average wage" shall be deemed as above 1,783,576 won. The calculation details of the retirement allowance at the time of the fire of this case shall be as shown in the attached Table).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unstrifed Facts, Gap evidence 12-1, Gap evidence 13, Gap evidence 14, and damages from Gap evidence 14, and damages from Gap evidence 227, 469,853 ( = 284, 337, 317, 000 x 0.8, 00 x less than won) b): The retirement allowances for one room: 16,525,235 won ( = 20,656, 544 x 0.8,00 won x less than won): The reasons for taking into account the deceased's age, family relations, reasons for death, and other various circumstances shown in the argument of this case.

(b) the determined amount;

The deceased A: 35,00, 000, 10,000, 3,000, 3,000, 3,000, 000, 5) Inheritance Amount: 278,95,088 won ( = 243,95,08 won ( = 227,469, 853 won + 16,525, 235 won) of the deceased AA + The deceased's 35,00,00, 00 won (the deceased's parent of the deceased AA), and the deceased's 1/2,00, 300 won (the deceased's 1, B,00, 300, 49, 497, 497, 498, 497, 497, and 235): The deceased's 35,000 won (the deceased's 1: the deceased's 1,2497, 497

(b) for the net AB, lost income;

The net AB suffered loss due to the instant fire shall be calculated at the present price as of the date of the instant fire pursuant to the Hofmanial Calculation Act, which deducts intermediate interest at the rate of 5/12 per month as follows, based on the facts of recognition and evaluation as follows: (a) Gender: AS (2) age: (4) age remaining 19 years before the date of the instant fire: (5) age : 5 years after the date of the instant fire: (5) 19 years (a) age : 5 years after the date of the instant fire; (b) 3 years after the date of the instant fire; (c) 5 years after the date of the instant fire; (a) 0 years after the date of the instant fire; and (d) 10 years after the date of the instant fire; and (d) 3 years after the date of the instant fire, the net AB entered into the R on September 1, 201; and (d) 3 years after the date of the instant fire, until the date of death; and (e) 1, 30 15 months before the date of the fire.

(6) Cost of living: 1/3 (7) maximum working age of revenues: the end of the year in which the net AB reaches 5 years of age, and the subsequent maximum working age is until the age of 60, and shall work every 22 days of a month.

[Ground of Recognition] A 2-2, A 12-2, A 13-2, A 14-2, A 15-2, and A 15

The retirement allowance for 439 months from May 5, 2012 to December 31, 2048 x 2/3 x 2/3 x 240,00 = 287, 476, and 800) the daily retirement allowance for 439 months from December 31, 2048.

The deceased AB joined the R on September 1, 2010. The retirement allowance to be received at the time of the fire of this case shall be calculated at the present price at the time of the fire of this case, and the amount of 21,345,751 won ( = 24,340,301 won - 2,94,550 won) shall be calculated when the retirement allowance at the time of the fire of this case is deducted (Article 24, 340, 301 won - 2,94, 550 won). (The rules of employment of R stipulate that when a worker continues to work for more than one year and retires, the amount equivalent to the average wage of 30 days for each year of his/her employment shall be deemed as 1,796,730 won above. The calculation details of the retirement allowance at the time of the fire of this case shall be as shown in the attached Table No. 1).

[Ground of Recognition] Unstrifed Facts, Gap evidence 12-2, Gap evidence 13, Gap evidence 14, each entry of Gap evidence 14, and all pleadings 3) actual income: 229,981, 440 won ( = 287, 476, 800 won x 0.8)

(b) Retirement allowance: 17,076, and 600 won ( = 21,345, 751 won x 0.8, and less than KRW 4): The deceased’s age, family relation, details of death, and other circumstances shown in the arguments in the instant case.

(b) the determined amount;

Net AB: 35,00, 000 won, Plaintiff D and AI respectively: 10,00 won, 00 won, 3,000 won, 00, 000 won, and 00 won, respectively): 282,058,040 won [ = 247,058,040 won = 229,981, 440 won + 17,076, 600 won + 35,000 won, 00 won, 00 won, 00 won, 300 won, 00 won, 00 won, 00 won, 18, 2008, 408, 2000 won, 100 won, 100 won, 100 won, 200 won, 208, 400 won, 200 won, 2008, 400 won, 200

The net income loss sustained by the deceased AC due to the instant fire shall be calculated as the current price at the time of the instant fire pursuant to the Hofmanial Calculation Act, which deducts intermediary interest according to the ratio of 5/12% per month as follows, based on the facts of recognition and evaluation as follows: (a) gender: AT birth (2) age: (4) age remaining between 20 and 6 months at the time of the instant fire: 5-year retirement age (5) on the basis of the monetary assessment (a) age of 5 years for operating capacity (5) : 5 years after the date of the instant fire; (b) 5 years after the date of the instant fire; (c) 7 years after the date of the instant fire; (d) 5 years after the date of the instant fire; (a) 5 years after the date of the instant fire; and (d) 7 years after the date of the instant fire to the date of the death of the deceased; and (e) 7 years after the date of the instant fire to the average of 3 months before the date of the fire.

(6) Cost of living: 1/3 (7) maximum working age of revenues: The retirement age of AC on the ground is the last day of the year in which he reaches 5 years of age, and thereafter the maximum working age is until the age of 60, and shall work every 22 days of a month.

[Ground of Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 3-2, Gap evidence 12-3, Gap evidence 13, Gap evidence 14, Gap evidence 15, and calculation of the whole pleadings

The retirement allowance for 415 months from May 5, 2012 to May 12, 2046, 31, 415, 856, 856 x 2/3 x 240, 000 = 297, 096, 960 won 2) one-time retirement allowance.

The deceased AC joined the R on September 6, 2010. The retirement allowance to be received at the time of the fire of this case shall be calculated at the present price at the time of the fire of this case, and the amount of 21,568,001 won ( = 24,662,761 won - 3,094,760 won) shall be deemed to be paid at the time of the fire of this case (Article 24, 662, 761 won - - 3,04,760 won). (The rules of employment of R stipulate that when a worker continues to work for more than one year and retires, the amount equivalent to "30 days' average wage" shall be deemed to be 1,856,856 won as above. The calculation details of the retirement allowance of the actual retirement allowance at the time of the fire of this case shall be as shown in the attached Table).

[Ground of Recognition] Unstrifed Facts, Gap evidence 12-3, Gap evidence 13, Gap evidence 14, and all pleadings 3) actual income: 237, 677, and 568 won ( = 297, 096, 960 won x 0.8)

(b) Retirement allowance: 17,254, 400 won ( = 21,568, 001 won x 0.8, and less than KRW 4): The deceased’s age, family relation, details of death, and other circumstances shown in the arguments in the instant case.

(b) the determined amount;

The amount of inheritance subject to 35,00,000 won, Plaintiff G, and H, respectively, 10,000 won: 289,931,968 won [ = 254,931,968 won ( = 237,67,568 won + 17,254,40 won + 17,250,000 won] or 35,000 won of the net AC + The amount of consolation money of KRW 35,00,000] or the amount of inheritance subject to 289,931,968 won for the property damage of the network AC

Plaintiff G and H: 154, 965, and 984 won [the inheritance amount = 144, 965, and 984 won ( = 289, 931, 968 won: 2) + 10,000, and 00 won]

(d) 1) All of the net income for the Z;

The net import damage caused by the instant fire shall be calculated at the present price at the time of the instant fire pursuant to the Hofmanial Calculation Act, which deducts intermediate interest at the rate of 5/12% as follows, based on the facts recognized and the content of the assessment as follows: (a) Gender: A (2) the age of male (4) : The 50 years old at the time of the instant fire: the maximum working age of 41 years (5) : The monetary assessment of the operating capacity of 48.51 years: the amount equivalent to the wages of ordinary workers who are urban daily workers until they reach 60 years of age; (2) the maximum working age of 6.6 days shall be calculated on the basis of the annual wage investigation report of construction business 1/12%; and (3) the maximum working age of 6.6 days shall be calculated on the basis of the maximum working age of 2.6 days per month until the date of the instant fire: (4) the maximum working age of 3.6 days per month; and (4) the maximum working age of 26.6.68 days per month

[Ground of Recognition] A-2, Gap evidence 4-2, Gap evidence 15-2, and calculation of the whole pleadings, or the purport or calculation of the whole pleadings: 348 months from May 5, 2012 to May 14, 2041 x 348 months 1, 663, 376 won x 2/3 x 2/3 x 764 x 238, 157, 074 won 2) limitation on liability

In case of lost income: 190, 525, 659 won ( = 238, 157, 074 x less than KRW 0.8, and less than KRW 8): The deceased's age, family relation, circumstance of death, and other various circumstances shown in the pleadings of this case.

(b) the determined amount;

The marine area: 35,00, 000, 10, 100, 3,000, 3,000, 3,000, 3,000, 4) inheritance: 225,525,659 won ( = 190,525, 659 won for the property damage of the marine area + 35,000, 000 won for the consolation money of the marine area + 35,000 won for the damage of the marine area + 35,000 won for the damage of the marine area), or the heir: the Plaintiff I, the parents of the marine area, and the J calculated (1/2 inheritance each of 1/22,762, 00 won: 12, 200, 205 won, 205 won, 205, 2005 won, 205 won, 2005 won, 2005 won

(e) lost income for net AD (1)

The net import loss of the deceased AD caused by the instant fire shall be calculated at the present price as at the time of the instant fire pursuant to the Hofmanial Calculation Act, which deducts intermediary interest at the rate of 5/12% per month, based on the following facts and the assessment: (a) Gender: AV (2) age: AV (4) age : AV age : AV age 21 South (4) age : 57 February (5) age : 60 years; 6) an amount equivalent to the ordinary worker's wage for each month until the age 60; (2) the maximum working age is calculated on the basis of the average worker's wage for each month until the age 60; and (3) the maximum working age is calculated on the basis of the wage investigation report for construction business's actual wage 1; and (4) the maximum working age is calculated on the 26th day of May 208; and (5) the maximum working age is calculated on the basis of the maximum working age of 26th day.

[Ground of recognition] A-2, Gap evidence 5-2, Gap evidence 15-2, and calculation of the whole pleadings, or the purport or calculation of the whole pleadings: 461 months from May 5, 2012 to October 5, 2050 x 2/3 x 2/3 x 240,000 = 266, 140, 160, 160 won

In case of lost income: 212, 912, 128 won ( = 266, 140, 160 x 0.8) 3);

A) Reasons for taking into account: The deceased’s age, family relation, background of death, and other various circumstances shown in the pleadings of this case.

(b) the determined amount;

Net AD: The amount subject to inheritance of the Plaintiff L, M, and M, respectively, (10,00,000, 3,000, 000, 3,000, 000, 400 won): 247,912,128 won ( = 212,912, 128 won + 35,000,000 won for net AD's consolation money + 35,000 won for net AD's consolation money + 35,000 won): The Plaintiff L, each of the parents of the deceased AD, M: 13,30, 956, 064 won = [the inheritance amount of KRW 123,95,00,000, 000, 000, 000 won, 130,000 won, 204, 207, 2008 won, 2004

(f) lost income for the net AE;

The net import damage suffered by the deceased AE due to the instant fire shall be calculated at the present price at the time of the instant fire pursuant to the Hofmanial Calculation Act, which deducts intermediary interest according to the ratio of 5/12% per month as follows, based on the facts of recognition and evaluation as follows: (a) gender: AW (2) age: AW (4) age : The remaining 24 years at the time of the instant fire: 5 years: 54 years (5) age: The monetary evaluation of the operating capacity of the ordinary workers until they reach the age of 60; (2) the amount equivalent to the wages of the ordinary workers employed in the city until they reach the age of 60; (3) the maximum working age of 60 days per month is calculated on the basis of the average wage investigation report of the construction industry x 26 days per month; and (6) the maximum working age of 26 days per month x 36 days per month; and (3) the maximum working age of 60 days per month is calculated on the basis of the actual working age of the construction industry.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 6-4, Gap evidence 15, and calculation of the whole pleadings, or the purport or calculation of the whole pleadings: 426 months from May 5, 2012 to December 1, 2047 x 426 months 1, 663, 376 x 2/3 x 2/3 x 240,000 = 266, 140, 160 won 2)

In case of lost income: 212, 912, 128 won ( = 266, 140, 160 won x 0.8): The deceased's age, family relationship, reason for death, and other various circumstances shown in the arguments of this case.

(b) the determined amount;

deceased AE: 35,00,000 won, Plaintiff P and AJ respectively, and inheritance relationship between Plaintiff P and AJ: 247,912,12, and 128 won ( = 212,912,128 won, + 35,000,000 won for deceased AE’s property damage + 35,000 won for deceasedE’s consolation money): The heir’s computation of Plaintiff P, the mother of the network AE, shall be solely inherited).

Plaintiff P: 267, 912, 128 won [the inherited amount = 247, 912, 128 won + one’s consolation money of 10,000,000 won + the transferred AJ’s consolation money of 10,000,000 won];

G. Sub-committee

Therefore, Defendant Busan Metropolitan City, Q, R, S, T, U, andV respectively (149, 49, 49, 597, 544, 200, 3,000, 302,058, 040, 300, 400, 3,000, 500, 500, 50, 154, 65, 984, 62, 829, 729, 3,00, 3,00,000, 13,956, 00, 9564, 9, 964, 3,000, 13,000, 3,000, 3,000, 3,000, 2,000, 2,000, 3,00,000 won per annum for each of the above disputes against Plaintiff C, 2, 2815,015.

5. Determination as to the claim against the defendant Busan Jin-gu

A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1) even though the second floor of the building of this case had already been fired around November 201, the public officials belonging to the Busan Jin-gu failed to discover the fact of illegal remodeling in the third emergency district because they failed to thoroughly perform safety inspections. This violates Article 3 (1) of the Multi-Use Factory Act or Article 6 subparagraph 2 of the Regulation on the Guidance of the Busan Jin-gu Government Offices, and the public officials belonging to the Busan Jin-gu violated Article 3 (2) of the Multi-Use Factory Act and Article 7 (2) of the Multi-Use Factory Act, even though the public officials belonging to the defendant Sin-gu received the report of succession to the status of the main building of this case from the defendant S in around August 2010 to the defendant T, the Busan Jin-gu chief did not notify the employees of the defendant T and the above main building of the fact that the public officials belonging to the defendant Busan Jin-gu did not perform fire safety education on the third floor of this case.

4) As a result of the above negligence by the public officials belonging to the defendant Busan District, the deceased was unable to evacuate properly at the time of the occurrence of the instant fire, and thus, the defendant Busan District as an employer of the above public officials is liable to compensate the plaintiffs, who are the deceased and their bereaved family members, pursuant to Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act.

B. Determination

1) Determination on the first argument

Article 3 (1) of the Public Use Establishments Act provides that "the State and local governments shall prepare policies necessary for the installation, maintenance, and safety management of fire-fighting facilities, safety facilities, etc., and safety facilities, etc., of public use establishments used by many unspecified persons in order to protect the lives, bodies, and property of the people." Article 6 (2) of the Regulation on the Guidance of Public Use Establishments in Busan-gu provides that "the Busan-gu has a duty to control the government-authorized establishment on a regular basis." Thus, the above provision cannot be deemed as a provision imposing specific obligations on Defendant Busan-gu with regard to the emergency exit, etc. of the main store of this case. In addition, in the case of the Regulation on the Guidance of Public Use Establishments in Busan-gu, Busan-gu, the negligence of the public officials belonging to Defendant Busan-gu cannot be recognized on the basis of this provision. The plaintiffs' assertion in this part is without merit.

The facts that Defendant Busan Jin-gu did not notify the fact to the Busan Jin-gu fire station within 30 days from the date of receiving the report of succession to the status of the business operator from Defendant Samsung around August 2010 are not disputed between the parties. However, in full view of the overall purport of the arguments in the items of evidence No. 38-1, evidence No. 39-1, evidence No. 2, evidence No. 39-2, evidence No. 1, Eul No. 1, and evidence No. 2, it is intended to grasp the current status of the publicly used establishment within the jurisdiction of Busan Jin-gu as basic material for the prevention of fire fighting.

12. On December 16, 2010, it is recognized that public officials belonging to Busan-gu requested the "request for the cooperation of basic data on the object of fire fighting", one of the laws and regulations on the above request for cooperation is Article 7 of the Multi-Use Establishments Act, and the defendant Jin-gu in Busan-gu notified the "basic data on the object of fire fighting" to the operator of the main station of this case on December 23, 2010, along with the current status list (the above current status list is called the "date of the commencement of the business" and the changed point of time of the business operator from the defendant S to the defendant T" as well as the "basic data on the object of fire fighting" attached to the current status list (the above current status list is stated the time of the change of the business operator from the defendant S to the defendant T". According to the above facts, even if public officials belonging to Busan-gu did not comply with the above basic data on the object of fire fighting, the above basic data on the object of fire fighting can not be viewed of the changed.

3) As to the third argument, it is not a subject matter of Article 79(1) of the Building Act to remodel the equipment, such as softs, scams, and singing machines, to a room for operating the business, or to close the emergency door by cableing it. Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit. Accordingly, it cannot be viewed that there is any negligence on the part of the public officials belonging to the defendant Busan-gu in relation to the fire of this case and the deceased and the plaintiffs' damages. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim against the defendant Busan-gu in Busan-gu is without merit.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' respective claims against the defendant Busan Metropolitan City, Q, R, S, T, U, and V are accepted within the scope of the above recognition. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendant Busan High-gu and the remaining claims against the defendant Busan Metropolitan City, Q, R, S, T, U, and V are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Jong-soo

Judges Na commercialia

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.