손해배상(기)
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
The reasons for this judgment of this court shall be the same as the judgment of the first instance.
(The main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). However, the third third or less of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be followed as follows:
We examine whether the instant stairs do not meet the level of stability normally required.
Rules on the criteria for the escape, fire prevention structure, etc. of a building were enacted on May 7, 199 by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, and Article 2 of the Addenda thereto was enforced, and the application of construction standards, etc. in cases where a building permit is applied or a building report is being constructed after obtaining a building permit or filing a building report is made.
The Rules do not apply to the instant commercial building, the registration of ownership preservation of which was completed on April 3, 1958.
Therefore, the instant stairs do not satisfy the requirements prescribed by the rules on the standards of escape, fire prevention structure, etc. of the building.
Even if such circumstance alone, it cannot be said that the stability is not satisfied.
According to Gap 5-1 through 29, it is recognized that the stairs of the commercial building of this case are somewhat sloped, the knife is low, and the knife is cut off.
Therefore, it is insufficient to view that the passage through the instant stairs is somewhat inconvenient due to such a circumstance, but it does not have the stability ordinarily required beyond the extent of inconvenience.
There is no evidence to support the plaintiffs' assertion otherwise.
Rather, according to Gap 25 and 27, the deceased was 73 years old at the time of the accident of this case, and the deceased was divided into I, J, etc., who was aware of usual 506 commercial buildings of this case from H, which were 506 years old at the time of the accident of this case, and was vadi, which would have been vadi, which would have been vadi.
Therefore, as long as there is insufficient evidence to prove that the instant stairs failed to meet the level of stability normally required, it goes on a different premise.