구상금
The part against the plaintiff falling under the amount ordered to be paid under the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. The reasons why the court stated this part of the facts, the parties’ assertion, and the occurrence of liability for damages are as follows: “The defendant leases one floor of G in the case of strike adjacent to the building of this case to “a shop adjacent to the building of this case” under Section 14 of the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where “the defendant leases a shop adjacent to the building of this case to “a shop adjacent to the building of this case,” it is identical with the corresponding part of the judgment of the court
2. Scope of liability for damages
A. According to Article 3(1) of the Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by Negligence, in a case where there is no gross negligence on the part of a de facto supervisor, a claim for reduction of the amount of damages may be filed, and in such a case, the court may reduce the amount of damages by taking into account the circumstances under each subparagraph of
The term "serious negligence" as referred to in the above Act refers to a situation in which, without due care required for ordinary people, it can easily anticipate the result of the illegal and harmful harm even if it is not reasonable to do so, it lacks significant attention which is close to the intent of almost the same kind of intent.
(See Supreme Court Decision 92Da21050 delivered on October 27, 1992, etc.). B.
In light of the above legal principles, it is difficult to view that the defendant's defect in the installation and preservation constitutes gross negligence as referred to in the Act on the Responsibility for Fire Caused by Negligence
In addition, it is reasonable to limit the Defendant’s liability to compensate for damages by taking account of the fact that the specific cause of the instant fire is not revealed, most damaged restaurants, including the instant building, were located close to the instant building, temporary buildings were installed in the instant building, and there were no facilities to prevent fire prevention and spread, such as automatic fire extinguishing devices or fire walls installation, etc., and the Defendant also suffered considerable property damage due to the instant fire, etc.
C. Therefore, the defendant is insured against D.