1. In its reasoning, the judgment of the court below concluded that the accident of this case is evident by force majeure, on the ground that it is clear that the accident of this case was caused by force majeure, on the ground that the defendant company, which carried out an operation in front of the above control room on the wind that the building of the public works room owned by the defendant, was affected by the entrance door, which was opened to load the just in order to load the just of the just of the just of the just of the 1970s, and was caused by the collapse of the roof due to the storm, the fact that the non-party 1 of the pipe belonging to the defendant company, who carried out an operation in front of the above control room, died of the 11.18 of the admission fees for the admission fees, was not a dispute between the parties.

2. Article 758 of the Civil Code provides that a defect in the installation or preservation of a structure means that the structure itself is in a state of failing to meet normal safety (see Supreme Court Decision 66Da1723, Feb. 21, 1967) and that the victim bears the burden of proof with respect to the existence of the defect. However, as in the case of this case, if the roof of the control room of this case was the windless, the accident of this case is presumed to be due to the defect of the structure (see Supreme Court Decision 69Da1604, Dec. 30, 1969) and the evidence cited by the court of first instance, it cannot be deemed that the accident of this case was an force majeure caused by the strong wind other than the anticipated wind of the accident of this case, and it cannot be concluded that there was no defect in the control building of this case, and that the appraisal result of the appraiser 2, who was used only in the non-party 2, who did not have any defect in the building of this case, did not have been destroyed as evidence.

3. According to the plaintiff's legal representative's statement of January 29 of the same year, which was stated in the first instance court's pleading 1972.22, the plaintiff's legal representative, 1972.29, the accident of this case occurred on the part of the defendant company since the non-party 3, who is an employee of the defendant company, was erroneous in the work instruction, and thus, the employer's liability was selectively held. It is obvious in the record that this was appeared in the court below's pleading, and if the entrance opened as the above decision of the court below was invaded and the roof was caused, it should have been examined whether there was negligence in opening the entrance and making a decision thereon, but the court below did not make any decision thereon.

4. As seen above, the judgment of the court below is justified in holding that there is a violation of the rules of evidence, violation of the rules of law, or omission of judgment as to the defects in the structure.

Therefore, this decision is delivered with the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Kim Young-chul (Presiding Justice)