2. 100**************)

3.Z00 (****************)*)

4.Z00 (****************)*)

Plaintiff 3, 4 is a minor, and the legal representative assistant O, mother hedging

00

The plaintiffs' Address Gangwon-won OOO○ Ri***-*

[Judgment of the court below]

Legal Representative, Governor Kim*

Attorney Yu-hoon et al., Counsel for the defendant

Attorney Go-OOOOO

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are all dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 2/3 shall be borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. On February 9, 2006, the time when the fire (hereinafter referred to as the "fire") occurred on February 9, 2006, on the ○○○○○○○-gun, the Plaintiff Chowon-gun ○○○○○○○-gun, **** on the ground, sandbrid Location Board housing (hereinafter referred to as the "the building in this case") around 82.25 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the "the building in this case"), three children [the time when they are displayed on February 9, 2006; hereinafter referred to as the "the fire in this case"] who were born in the building in this case, and were born in 3 children [the ○○○ (hereinafter referred to as "the fire in this case" * *. *. 5 years of birth, woman, 5 years of age), ○○ (* Professor), 5 years of age), 00, 000 (hereinafter referred to as the "victim in this case].

B. Upon the occurrence of the instant fire, the ○○○○, which was in the instant building, requested a rapid rescue to the effect that he reported the occurrence of a fire at around 18:11:41 p.m., 119 p.m., and 1/2 p.m. within the instant house, “F.m.,” and requested a further rescue by making a phone call at around 119 p.m., 18:12:53 p.m., the phone call at around 119 p.m.

C. The chief of the fire station in the situation of the ○○ Fire Station, the Defendant affiliated with the Defendant, was the head of the fire station, and the second call with the U.S. head of the fire station at the time when the fire station was sent to the fire station at the same time. Accordingly, the ○○ Fire Station, a fire station affiliated with the ○○ Fire Station, which was located far away from 600 meters in a straight line from the fire site, was immediately dispatched to the fire station at around 18:14, and arrived at the fire site at around 18:14. Furthermore, the ○○ Fire Station, a fire station affiliated with the ○○○○○○ Fire Station, which was a witness of the ○○ Fire Station at the scene of the call during his rest, went to the scene immediately following the Kim○○○ by using his own car.

D. However, while ordering the dispatch, ○○○ did not notify only children inside the instant building, which is a fire site, of the fact that he/she was in the presence of the fire site, and at the latest, attempted to communicate with the dispatch fire officers on three occasions between 18:14 and 18:15, but failed.

The fact was not notified, and Kim○○ also did not have a human life search and rescue to confirm whether the fire site arrives inside the fire site and whether the fire site occurred inside the fire site, and without examining the head of Kim○○○’s fire station, he used approximately 5 minutes for the purpose of evacuationing one student who is on the right right side of the building of this case.

E. At around 18:14:05, one of the victims inside the instant building, was in the situation room of the ○○ Fire Station and approximately 38.5 seconds, but did not complete rescue, and all of the victims were killed at the same place. On the ground of the type of occupation, the parent, who was playing together with the ○○ ○○ ○○ ○ ○○ ○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

F. At the time of arrival at the site of a fire station Kim○, Kim○, and Kim○○, salt had not yet occurred. However, at the left side of the instant building, the instant building was handed down in a state where white smoke was fluored to the building, which is an adjacent building, and only when the fire officer started to cover the water roots on the building on the left side of the fire station by cutting a fire fighting fighting ice, the instant building was broken out, and the fluence was spread rapidly, and thereafter, the instant building was handed down.

G. The instant building is a sand position panel structure of 7.2 meters wide and 11 meters wide and has relatively large quantity of poisonous gas generated. On the left side of the building, the front left side of the building, the front door of the building and the rear door of the building are installed, and five windows (three on the left side and two on the right side) are located on the upper left side of the building, and the right side of the building is 1.14 meters away from the building on the left-hand center and the right side of 0.9 meters away from the house on the right side, so it is possible to access the building on the left-hand center.

H. According to the result of the assessment of fire in the national scientific research institute, it is presumed that the ship code of the ship presumed that it had been installed at the entrance entrance of the building of this case was burned from the negative of the ship to the electrical heat of 2.0 meters, and the burning has been expanded due to an internal combustion.

I. The plaintiff Cho ○ and Hu○○ are parents of Cho ○ (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), and the plaintiff Cho ○, Cho ○, and Cho ○ are the deceased.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, Eul evidence 1, 3, 11, 5

Each statement of the evidence Nos. 4-1 to 3, Eul Nos. 5, 6, and 7, each statement of the witness ○○, and Kim ○;

Each part of the testimony by the witness, Kim ○, and Kim ○○, and the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The parties' arguments

The Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendant shall compensate the Plaintiff, who is the deceased and his bereaved family members, for the damages caused by the negligence in the course of performing their duties of fire officers, on the ground that: (a) the Defendant’s ○○○ Fire Captain, who is a fire-fighting assistant under the Defendant’s control, committed a fire-fighting accident, which is one of the most fundamental matters, on the part of the fire-fighting officers; and (b) the fire-fighting commander Kim ○, who was dispatched to the scene of a fire, did not give priority to the search of human lives and the structure, which is the most fundamental principle in the event of a fire; and (c) caused the death of the victims by neglecting time due to a fire-fighting accident, and evacuation of neighboring residents.

In regard to this, the Defendant asserted that, after the fire report of this case, the fire officer was immediately called to the scene, and that at the time of the arrival of the site, the inspection was already carried out to the left-hand center of the building of this case, so that it can be made impreged, along with a smoke and fire extinguishing, and that it was impossible to enter the building as it was impossible to conduct human life search and rescue because the fire officer’s failure to conduct human life search at the fire site of this case, even if he did not conduct human life search at the fire site of this case, it cannot be viewed that he was negligent in performing his duties.

(b) Markets:

Therefore, as alleged in the plaintiffs, it was impossible for the victims to receive education and training on internal life search in accordance with the principle of priority in the rescue of human lives at the scene of fire officers, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts. ① The head of the fire site abutting on the fire report two times through 119 emergency telephones, which are relatively long time with children, did not order the dispatch fire officers to visit the fire site despite having received a report that only the children are responsible for the fire site. ② The Kim○, a fire officer called the dispatch order, also was educated and trained to give priority to the victims of the fire at the time of the arrival of the fire site, so it was difficult for the victims to arrive at the scene of the fire, even if the victims were not informed of the fact that they were on the fire site at the time of their arrival, it was difficult for the victims to arrive immediately after the arrival of the fire site at the first 5 minutes of the initial fire site and the first 5 minutes of the fire site.

The defendant, the user of the fire officer, is responsible for compensating the damages suffered by the deceased and the plaintiffs, who are their arbitratives, due to negligence in the course of performing his duties, which could be the most basic rules for human life search and rescue.

C. Limitation on liability

However, as recognized earlier, the fire of this case occurred due to the failure to thoroughly manage the electric facilities of the building of this case, which he had resided, even though he had to do so. In addition, even though he had been able to have been able to protect and supervise the deceased as the parent of the deceased, the fire of this case on the ground of his occupation without being negligent in doing so.

The plaintiffs caused the instant accident due to the mistake that only the deceased aged 5 years old and left in his house. This negligence on the plaintiffs also caused the instant accident.

However, the scope of the damages that the defendant should compensate is not limited to the extent of the defendant's liability, and the ratio shall be taken into consideration in determining the scope of the damages that the defendant should compensate, but in light of the background of the accident in this case and all other circumstances shown in the entire arguments in this case, 60% (the defendant's responsibility).

It is reasonable to view that the ratio is 40%).

3. Scope of liability;

In addition to the following separate statements, it is as shown in the attached table of calculation of damages (the interim interest shall be calculated at the present price at the time of the accident in accordance with the Hofmanial Calculation Act, which provides for simple interest at the rate of 5/12 per month based on the facts of recognition and evaluation as follows:

[Grounds: Facts without dispute, facts acknowledged earlier, significant facts, Gap evidence 1 and 13;

[Purpose of the defense premise]

(a) The deceased’s lost income;

(a) occupation and income;

The deceased, as a woman with five years of age at the time of the death, does not seem to have any other reason to obtain a specific technique or function. As such, the amount equivalent to the monthly income (1,272,040 won per month) calculated on the basis of the daily wage (57,820 won per day) of an ordinary city under the Act on the Investigation of Wages in the Construction Industry, which was applied in 207 by the Korea Construction Association, shall be deemed to be the income of the deceased, as the monthly income of the deceased, which is calculated on the premise that the deceased will work from the age of 20 to the age of 60 (57,820 won per day).

(2) Calculation

gold 1,272,040 won x 2/3 (living Expenses Deductions) x 183.678 (316.0541 - 132.3753) = gold 15,764,520 won (turf below the original level)

(b) Funeral expenses: Three million won (the loss incurred by Plaintiff Cho Jae-○ for a funeral).

(c) Set-off of negligence;

(a) Set-off rate: 60 percent;

(b) Calculation: ① Amount of net income: 62,305,808 won (gold KRW 155,764,520 x 0.4)

(2) Funeral expenses: 1.2 million won (gold three million won x 0.4).

(d) Condolence money;

(1) Grounds for consideration

The deceased and the plaintiffs' gender, age, occupation, family relationship, the circumstances and results of the accident of this case, and other circumstances shown in the arguments of this case.

(2) The amount determined;

(A) The Deceased: 10 million won

(B) Plaintiff Cho-○, Hu○○: each gold of KRW 6 million.

(C) Plaintiff Cho-○, Cho-○, and Cho-○: each of the 2 million Won

(d) The deceased’s damage and his inheritance relationship.

The deceased’s damage amount of KRW 72,305,808 (22,305,800,000 + KRW 10,000,000) due to the instant accident, is 36,152,904 (gold KRW 72,305,80 x 1/2) in accordance with the respective inheritance shares (1/2), whose parent is the Plaintiff Cho ○ and Hu○○○, a parent, to claim compensation for damages of KRW 72,305,80 (2,305,80 x 1/2).

E. Specific damages

(1) Plaintiff Cho-○: 43,352,904 won (the inherited amount of KRW 36,152,904 + the funeral expenses of KRW 1.2 million after offsetting negligence + the consolation money of KRW 6 million)

(2) Plaintiff Hu○○: 42,152,904 won (the inherited amount of KRW 36,152,904 + the consolation money of KRW 60 million)

(3) Plaintiff Cho-○, Cho-○, and Cho-○: Each of the solatium 2 million won.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff Cho ○○ for damages with 42,152,904 won, 2,000 won, 2,000,000 won, and each of the above amounts to the plaintiff Cho ○○, Hu○○, and Hu○○○, respectively, from February 9, 2006, which is the date of the accident of this case until June 14, 2007, where it is deemed reasonable for the defendant to dispute about the existence and scope of the obligation, 5% per annum under the Civil Act and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment. Thus, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are justified within the scope of each of the above claims, and each of the remaining claims is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

Kim**,

Kim*