The judgment of the court below is justified in its reasoning that Plaintiff 1 handled steel bars in order to conduct a railing work on the third floor of the building of the 3rd floor of the 22,90 V, at the end of which one end of the 2.15 meters away from the above building side, and the above cable was damaged by the wind to contact the special high-tension line of 22,90 V, which was above the above 22.15 meters from the above building side, and the above cable was installed at the non-party company which obtained authorization for the installation of an electrical structure under the Electric Utility Act with the non-party company which obtained authorization for the installation of an electrical structure under the electricity supply contract with the defendant corporation and the non-party company, which connects the second floor of the 45 o.O.S. (C.S.) and the non-party company's electrical wire to connect the above 3rd floor of the building of the 3rd floor of the 3rd floor of the above company, and the above electrical cable was not installed at the bottom of the above 4 meters of the above concrete unit.

However, the owner of a private-use electric structure shall appoint a security officer from among the electrical engineers licensed by the authorities to install and manage the electric structure directly, while the boundary points of the electricity supply and demand between the Defendant Construction Corporation and the beneficiaries are, in principle, limited to their own properties, so the power supply and demand facilities from the electricity supplier to the point of supply and demand shall own the electric installation under his responsibility at the boundary of the electricity supply and demand point (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 81Da1168, 81Meu899, May 25, 1982). Even if the electric installation is based on the proviso of Article 36, Article 45, and Article 49 of the Electric Utility Act (Evidence No. 6-1, a certificate No. 6-1), the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the electrical installation and supply of the electric cable, which did not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and thereby did not find the Defendant liable for the safety of the electric installation.

Therefore, the decision of the court below which does not require any determination on other grounds of appeal is reversed in its entirety as to the part against the defendant against the plaintiff 1 and the remaining part against the plaintiffs, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Park Jong-hee (Presiding Justice)