Attorney Kim Jong-cheon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Law Firm Initial (Law Firm Doz., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Park Dong-dong et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Whether the Defendant violated supervisory obligations (Ground of appeal No. 1)

A. Article 3 subparag. 1 of the former Mental Health Act (wholly amended by Act No. 14224, May 29, 2016; hereinafter the same) defines “mental patient” as “a person with mental illness (including an organic mental disorder), personality disorder, alcohol, drug addiction, and other non-psychological disorders,” and Article 21(1) main text of the same Act provides that “a person who is responsible for supporting or under the Civil Act of a mentally ill person (hereinafter referred to as “person responsible for supporting, etc.”) shall be a person responsible for protecting a mentally ill person.” In addition, Article 22(2) provides that “The person responsible for supporting shall be careful to ensure that the mentally ill person under his/her protection does not harm himself/herself or others” and imposes on a person responsible for supporting, etc. the duty to supervise the mentally ill person who is under his/her protection.”

Where a mentally ill person is not liable for compensation due to damage to another person while the mentally ill person is defective, a person who has a legal obligation to supervise him/her pursuant to Article 755(1) of the Civil Act shall be liable for compensation for the damage. Even when the mentally ill person has a legal capacity to compensate for the damage, if the damage has a causal relationship with the violation of the supervisory obligation by the person responsible for supervision, the person responsible for supervision shall be a general illegal

In light of the language, structure, etc. of the aforementioned statutory provisions, the person responsible for supporting, etc. is legally responsible for supervision over a mentally ill person who is a ward. Therefore, the person responsible for supporting, etc. is liable for compensating for damages to another person in violation of such duty. However, such supervisory duty is not a general duty that entirely controls the actions of the mentally ill person and prevents all results from such actions, but it is reasonable to interpret it as a duty within the reasonably limited scope by comprehensively taking into account the purport of the relevant statutes, such

In a specific case, whether a person responsible for supporting, etc. has violated the duty to supervise a mentally ill person, together with the living conditions, mental and physical conditions, etc. of a mentally ill person, shall be determined individually depending on whether it is reasonable to impose liability on a person responsible for supporting, etc. for acts of a mentally ill person, as well as whether it is reasonable to impose liability on a person responsible for supporting, etc. for an act of a mentally ill person, by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as whether the mentally ill person has committed an act of causing harm to others in the past, such as whether the mentally ill person has been in contact with his/her relatives, ordinary contact degree, involvement in the management of his/her property, etc., and whether

B. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the following facts are revealed.

(1) Plaintiff 1 is the owner of the instant apartment (water No. 1 omitted), and Plaintiff 2 and Plaintiff 3 are their family members residing together in the instant apartment (water No. 1 omitted). The Defendant is the owner of the instant apartment (water No. 2 omitted) adjacent to the instant apartment (water No. 1 omitted), and the Nonparty (water No. 1, 1988), who is living together with the Defendant, is the mentally ill person of Grade 3 of the mental disorder, suffering from stimulative disorder as the Defendant’s children.

(2) 소외인은 2016. 7. 4. 피고의 사무실에서 컴퓨터 수리문제로 피고와 다투고 이 사건 아파트 (호수 2 생략)으로 돌아온 후, 16:00경 자신의 방 침대 위에 수건과 헝겊, 부탄가스를 쌓아놓고 불을 붙였다. 피고는 사무실에 설치된 CCTV를 통하여 이를 확인하고 아파트로 가서 불을 껐고 소외인을 안정시킨 다음 사무실로 돌아왔다.

(3) Around 20:00 on July 4, 2016, the Defendant returned home and exchanged with the Nonparty. The Nonparty saw that the Defendant died and died of himself. The Defendant saw saw saw saw saws and saw saws as living independently for six months. The Nonparty, who entered one’s room thereafter, re-influences within the room. Although the Defendant attempted to discover and extinguish saws, the Nonparty saw saw saw saws and saws, and filed a report to the fire station and filed a report to the fire station without extinguishing saws by himself.

(4) On July 4, 2016, the fire that occurred from the instant apartment (water 2 omitted) was transferred to the instant apartment (water 1 omitted) around 22:00, and the household gate in the instant apartment (water 1 omitted), and the Plaintiff 2 and Plaintiff 3 got emergency treatment at the ○○ University Hospital by inhaleing smoke (hereinafter “the instant fire accident”).

C. The lower court determined that the Defendant, as a Nonparty’s lineal ascendant, has a duty of care to prevent in advance any contingent action, such as fire-prevention, and to prevent damage from occurring or expanding even if such contingent action was committed, the Defendant was liable for compensating for the damage jointly and severally with the Nonparty, since the damage was caused to the Plaintiffs due to negligence in violation. On the grounds delineated below.

(1) At the time of the instant fire accident, the Nonparty suffered from mental illness such as stimulative disorder at the time of the instant fire, as well as the Nonparty had already been fireed on one occasion on the same day, and continuously showed symptoms of mental anxiety by threatening with saws and stimuls.

(2) In such circumstances, the Defendant, as a legal guardian of the Nonparty, has the duty to prevent the Nonparty from performing any contingent action, such as fire prevention, and to prepare in advance so as not to cause or expand damage even if such contingent action is carried out.

(3) The Defendant was negligent in neglecting such preparation, and such negligence was one of the causes of the instant fire accidents, and the causal relationship between the negligence and the damage is recognized.

D. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, the lower court was justifiable in its determination that it was reasonable to hold the Nonparty liable for the Nonparty’s act on account of the Nonparty’s failure to prepare for the existence of a specific risk that the Nonparty may harm others. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the duty of supervision of the mentally ill person, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against

2. Scope of damages (Ground of appeal No. 2)

The lower court held that the Defendant was liable to pay KRW 15,50,000, and damages for delay, as claimed by the said Plaintiff, within the scope of KRW 20,837,888 ( KRW 33,618,770 - KRW 12,780), remaining after subtracting the insurance proceeds received from the said Plaintiff from the insurance company, from KRW 33,618,770 due to the instant fire accident, from KRW 33,618,770,882.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the lower judgment did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

3. Conclusion

The Defendant’s appeal is dismissed in entirety as it is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jae-hyung

Justices Ansan-chul

Justices Lee Dong-gu