1. The lower court determined as follows on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

The defendant, as the head of the management office of the apartment of this case, has been delegated by the council of occupants' representatives to manage the apartment facilities, and is the managing body of the elevator with the responsibility and authority to manage the elevator from the occupants.

【elevator Facilities Safety Management Act (hereinafter referred to as the “elevator Act”).

Article 2 Subparag. 4) b.

The defendant shall safely maintain the relevant elevator so as to maintain its function and safety continuously (Article 4 of the Elevator Act), and may appoint a person with extensive knowledge in the operation of the elevator as a safety manager, and have him/her manage the relevant elevator, but in such cases, he/she shall bear the duty to direct and supervise the elevator safety manager.

(Article 16-2 (1) and (3) of the Elevator Act).

In the event of an elevator breakdown, the passenger rescue work shall be carried out by an expert as it is likely that a salvor or a passenger might fall during the work.

However, even before the apartment of this case, the accident occurred several times, and the defendant stated in the first instance court that "in the event of an elevator accident, the passenger structure should be the expert, and the management office has been rescued."

In the apartment of this case, the management office, in fact, conducted the rescue of passengers, but the electrical companies did not receive systematic education or manuals related to safety.

E. The Defendant is obligated to safely maintain the elevator and prepare for an elevator accident as the managing body of the elevator, and as such, performed the salvage work for the passengers confined in the elevator through the electrical company, who is an employee of the management office under its direction and supervision, and is the electrical company A.