[손해배상(기)][공1996.4.15.(8),1058]
[1] The relationship between the liability for damages caused by a fire and the application of the responsibility for fire-fighting as well as the liability for fire-fighting
[2] The meaning of "serious negligence" under the Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by Negligence
[3] The case holding that there is no gross negligence in the responsibility for realization
[1] Article 758(1) of the Civil Act shall apply to the liability for damages caused by a fire directly caused by a defect in the installation or preservation of a structure itself, and Article 758(1) of the Civil Act shall apply to the liability for damages caused by a fire, and the Act on the Liability for Fire
[2] The term "major negligence" under the Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by Negligence refers to a situation in which, without due care required for an ordinary person, it can be easily predicted that the result of the illegal and harmful act can be easily predicted, and it lacks significant attention similar to the intention, such as that of almost few cases.
[3] The case holding that there was no gross negligence in the responsibility for fire-fighting, in case where the building was destroyed by timber set up on the wall of a neighboring building due to a fire in a wood station, but the cause of the fire was not revealed
[1] Article 758 (1) of the Civil Code, the Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by Negligence / [2] the Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by Negligence / [3] the Act on the Liability for Fire
[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 92Da21050 decided Oct. 27, 1992 (Gong1992, 3273) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 93Da20405 decided Dec. 10, 1993 (Gong1994Sang, 346) Supreme Court Decision 93Da56404 decided Mar. 22, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1316) / [2/3] Supreme Court Decision 90Da11509 decided Apr. 9, 199 (Gong191, 1341) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 92Da2578 decided Apr. 24, 1992 (Gong1992, 198Da3645 decided Apr. 29, 195) / [309Da196597 decided Mar. 16, 1995]
Plaintiff (Law Firm Sung-nam General Law Office, Attorneys Yeo-kin et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
Defendant (Attorney Shin Jae-chul et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee)
Seoul High Court Decision 95Na353 delivered on April 25, 1995
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
On the first ground for appeal
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the cause of the fire of this case is electricity joint ship for the reasons stated in its judgment, and there is no other evidence to prove that the cause of the fire of this case is electricity joint ship. In light of the records, since the defendant can be recognized that the fire of this case was prosecuted due to the crime of occupational fire, but the cause of the fire cannot be known, the above recognition and judgment of the court below are deemed legitimate, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or mistake of facts, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no other error of law.
Therefore, we cannot accept this issue because it is merely merely criticizes the selection of evidence and the recognition of facts which are the exclusive authority of the court below.
On the second ground for appeal
Article 758(1) of the Civil Act shall apply to the liability for damages caused by a fire that occurs directly due to a defect in the installation or preservation of a structure itself and shall apply to the liability for damages caused by the fire (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da20405, Dec. 10, 1993; 93Da56404, Mar. 22, 1994).
In the same purport, the court below is just in rejecting the plaintiff's assertion that the fire of this case occurred due to the defect in the construction and preservation of the wooden building owned by the defendant, which was caused by the defendant's timber plant building and loaded timber, and the fire was removed from the building's outer wall of the building owned by the plaintiff, and it was not revealed that the cause of the fire was not revealed. The plaintiff's assertion that the fire of this case occurred due to the defect in the construction and preservation of the wooden building owned by the defendant is without merit, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles (the fact that the third party's gross negligence was involved after the fire of this case, and did not go against the judgment of liability for damages
On the third ground for appeal
The term "major negligence" in the Act on the Responsibility for Fire Caused by Negligence refers to "a situation in which a certain degree of attention is not required for an ordinary person even without due care" refers to "a situation in which a result of easily illegal harm can be predicted, which lacks significant attention similar to almost the same intention" (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Da11509, Apr. 9, 1991; 92Da2578, Apr. 24, 1992; 94Da36506, Oct. 13, 195).
The court below held that the defendant cannot be held liable for negligence in this case where the fire in this case occurred in a timber station in the defendant's management and it was not revealed that the fire in this case occurred in any act by anyone, and that there was no gross negligence on the part of the defendant, on the ground that the defendant did not remove non-processed timber from the outer wall of the building owned by the plaintiff in preparation for the risk of burning the fire in case of a fire, and that there was no gross negligence on the part of the defendant. In light of the records, the above recognition and decision of the court below are just, and there was no violation of the rules
All arguments are without merit.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, 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 on the bench.
Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)