1. As to the Defendants’ ground of appeal No. 1

Defect in the installation or preservation of a structure as referred to in Article 758(1) of the Civil Act means that a structure is in a state of failing to meet the safety requirements ordinarily required for its use. Whether the installation or preservation of the structure satisfies the said safety requirements shall be determined on the basis of whether the installer or preservation of the structure has fulfilled the duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the risk

In addition, an accident caused by a defect in the installation or preservation of a structure does not mean only the defect in the installation or preservation of a structure causes the occurrence of the damage, and as long as a defect in the installation or preservation of a structure becomes one of the joint causes of the accident, the damage caused by an accident shall be deemed to have occurred due to the defect in the installation or preservation of a structure (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da101343, Apr. 29, 2010, etc.). In addition, even if a fire was caused by a cause other than a defect in the installation or preservation of a structure or unless the cause of a fire is revealed, if a fire was spread due to a defect in the installation or preservation of a structure, it can be deemed that the defect in the installation or preservation of a structure becomes one of the joint causes of the fire accident

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that there was a defect in the installation or preservation of the instant building, such as that the outer wall, etc. of the instant building is not a fireproof structure, and that there was no facility installed for preventing the spread of fire, such as automatic fire extinguishing device, etc., on the instant building, and that the fire that occurred from the instant building caused the damage by burning

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to defects in the installation or preservation of structures.

2. As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal No. 1

The term "major negligence" as referred to in the Act on the Responsibility for Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Negligence refers to "a state of lack of significant attention which is close to the intention, such as simply simply marizing illegal and harmful results, even though it can be easily predicted if a little attention is not given to an ordinary person even without due diligence (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da30113, Oct. 25, 1996, etc.).

In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below that the damages amount of the fire of this case can be reduced due to the lack of gross negligence against Defendant 1 is just, and there is no violation of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to gross negligence under the Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by Negligence.

The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are different from this case, and thus are inappropriate to be invoked in this case.

3. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal No. 2 and Defendants’ ground of appeal No. 2

The fact-finding or determination of 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 clearly unreasonable (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da71318, Mar. 28, 2013, etc.).

In full view of the cause and scale of the instant fire, the subject and degree of damage, the cause of the spread of combustion and damage, etc., the lower court reduced the liability for damages to be borne by the Defendants by Nonparty 1 and 2 by 50%, respectively

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court’s fact-finding or its determination as to the grounds for reduction of liability for damages is justifiable and acceptable to the extent that is not considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)