[2] Where the State or a local government is held liable to compensate for a violation of official duty of a public official, and the standard for determining proximate causal relation

[3] The case affirming the judgment of the court below that there is no proximate causal relation between the violation of duty by fire officers under the Fire Services Act and the occurrence of fire in commercial buildings and the collapse of buildings

[4] Whether the Act on the Liability for Negligence applies to the State or local governments' liability for damages (affirmative)

[2] In general, when a public official exercises his/her authority, he/she bears an official duty to prevent damage to the people or to take into account the safety of the people, and when a public official’s official duty to maintain order inside an administrative agency, regardless of the interests of the people, or when a public official’s duty to perform his/her duty is merely intended to promote the overall interests of the general public, regardless of whether the public official’s duty is for the benefit of the people, even if the public official’s duty is not for the benefit of the general public, the public official’s liability for damages is not recognized. On the other hand, if the contents of his/her official duty are set to protect the safety and interest of the individual members of the society entirely or incidentally, if the public official’s duty are set to protect the safety and interest of the members of the society, the State or local government is liable to compensate for damages suffered by the victim due to his/her violation of such official duty to the extent that the proximate causal relation is acknowledged. In determining the existence of proximate causal relation, the probability of the occurrence, as well as the purpose of laws and other rules of conduct

[3] The case affirming the judgment of the court below that there is no proximate causal relation between the violation of duty by fire officers under the Fire Services Act, the occurrence of fire in commercial buildings, and the collapse of buildings (the case concerning the collapse of the Cheongju-si Man-si Maak

[4] Article 8 of the State Compensation Act provides, with the exception of the provisions of the same Act, that the liability of compensation by the State or local government shall be governed by the provisions of the Civil Act except for the liability of compensation by the State or local government, and the provisions of the Civil Act other than the Civil Act shall apply to the liability of the State or local government, and the Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Fire, considering the fact that the liability of the fire is excessive due to fire caused by fire, the fire caused by the fire and other things in the event of fire caused by the fire, and the responsibility of the fire is limited to the case of the fire caused by gross negligence. As such, the special provisions of Article 750 of the Civil Act concerning the liability of the fire-fighting person for compensation by fire-fighting, the application of the Act

A. On the first and third grounds for appeal

The court below acknowledged facts based on its evidence, and found that the accident of this case was caused by fire near the center of the first floor of the building in which the judgment was held, and that the accident of this case was caused by defective construction from the beginning to the spread of fire, and that the interior structure of the building in this case which did not meet safety of fire was caused by the chain collapse. The defective construction is caused by the error in the performance of duties of co-defendant 1, 2, 3, and deceased non-party 1 of the court of first instance, co-defendant 1 of the court of first instance and co-defendant 1 of the court of first instance. Further, the defendant company did not be held liable for the accident of this case because it was objectively considered as the user who permitted the use of the name of this case as an employer, and therefore, it cannot be held liable for damages to the defendant company and the above non-party 1 of the above deceased non-party 1, in light of the facts alleged in the grounds of appeal and the records, and there were no errors in the court below's determination as to the remaining grounds of appeal and the judgment.

B. On the second ground for appeal

In the case of damage claim based on an illegal act at an interval of time between the harmful act and the actual damage caused by this, the meaning of "the date on which the illegal act, which serves as the starting point of the extinctive prescription, was committed" should be viewed as the time when it can be seen that the damage, which exists only in a conceptual and dynamic state, was realized thereafter.

In the same purport, in a case where there is time interval between the harmful act and the actual damage caused by the harmful act in claiming compensation for damages, the date on which the statute of limitations begins shall be deemed to refer to the time when the damage caused by the illegal act was objectively realized, not to the date of the harmful act committed, but to the time when the damage caused by the illegal act was objectively realized. In this case, the time when the damage caused by the improper construction in this case was realized shall be deemed to be January 7, 1993 in which the accident in this case occurred, and the measures to reject the defense of the above Defendants' statute of limitations are deemed to be correct, and there was no error of law as alleged in the grounds of appeal, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

C. On the fourth ground for appeal

According to the records, the plaintiffs' money received from Cheongju-si due to the accident of this case is not paid to the plaintiffs as part of the damages compensation, but it can be known that Cheongju-si paid the money of the people received from Cheongju-si and each press organization for consolation money or condolence money to the above deceased. Thus, the above money is not subject to deduction from the damages compensation of the defendants.

In the same purport, the judgment of the court below is deemed to have correct measures not deducting the above money from the amount of compensation for damages, and there is no violation of law as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

D. On the fifth ground for appeal

The argument that Article 1026(2) of the Civil Act is unconstitutional because the provision of Article 23(1) and Article 11(1) of the Constitution unfairly infringes on the provision of Article 23(1) and Article 11(1) of the Constitution is invalid is a new argument in the final appeal, and

2. The plaintiffs' grounds of appeal excluding the comparative negligence set-off among each of the plaintiffs' attorneys Kim Jong-sik, Kim Sung-sung, and Park Jong-sung

A. On the first ground for appeal

In general, when a public official exercises his/her authority, he/she bears an official duty to prevent damage to the citizens or to take into account the safety of the people. Among the duties imposed by a public official in accordance with the provisions of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, if a public official’s performance of his/her duties is to maintain order inside an administrative agency without regard to the interests of the people, or if his/her duties are not for the benefit of the people, but for the sole purpose of promoting the overall interest of the public, the public official’s damage is not acknowledged even if he/she violated his/her official duties, and if the public official’s duty was established to protect the safety and interest of the individual members of the society, the State or local government is liable to compensate for the damage inflicted upon the victim by violating his/her official duties to the extent that the proximate causal relation is acknowledged. In determining the existence of proximate causal relation, the specific circumstances such as the probability of the occurrence of the results, the purpose of Acts and subordinate statutes and regulations imposing an official duty, the form and degree of damage, etc. shall be comprehensively taken into account.

After recognizing the facts as stated in its reasoning based on evidence, the court below tried to contribute to the maintenance of public safety and order by extinguishing fire and protecting the lives and property of the people, and also to the places where many people have access to or work. Further, in light of the contents of the Fire Act regarding fire preventive measures and the order to repair fire objects and the nature of their duties, the provisions of the Fire Services Act, as stated in its reasoning, were established for the purpose of ensuring the safety of the general public as a whole. Thus, if a fire officer violated such duty and damages to the people, it should be held that the local government to which the fire officer belongs should be held liable to maintain and manage the fire prevention and fire-fighting equipment of the above 1st century within the extent that proximate causal relation exists with the above fire officer's failure to maintain and manage the fire-fighting equipment at the time of the above accident. However, although the fire officer bears a direct duty to maintain and manage the fire-fighting equipment at the time of the above accident, the fire-fighting officer's failure to perform the duty to repair and remove the equipment of the above 2nd.

B. On the second ground for appeal

Article 8 of the State Compensation Act, which provides for the liability for damages of the State or local governments, provides that "the liability for damages of the State or local governments shall be governed by the provisions of the Civil Act except as otherwise provided for in this Act: Provided, That the provisions of the Civil Act shall apply to the liability for damages of the State or local governments, if any other Act other than the Civil Act exists, and the Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Fire, considering that once a fire occurs due to fire, the responsibility for fire caused by fire shall be limited to the cases of fire caused by gross negligence in consideration of the fact that the responsibility for the fire is enlarged by burning nearby houses and other things, and that the responsibility for the fire is excessive. As such, the special provisions of Article 750 of the Civil Act concerning the liability for damages of the fire by a public official for the damages of the State or local government due to

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is justified, and there is no violation of law as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. The plaintiff and the defendant's attorney's each of the grounds of appeal are examined together.

If the victim was negligent with regard to the occurrence or expansion of damages, it should be taken into account as a matter of course in determining the existence and scope of liability for damages. However, the fact-finding, mitigation of liability, or set-off of negligence as to the grounds for mitigation of liability or set-off of negligence is subject to the discretionary power of the fact-finding court unless it is deemed unreasonable in light of the principle of equity and not against the rules of evidence. In light of the records, the court below acknowledged facts as stated in its holding, and determined the damages amount of this case on the ground that the above deceased and the plaintiffs contributed significantly to the occurrence of the accident in this case and the expansion of damages caused thereby, it is reasonable that their ratio of negligence exceeds 50%, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to offsetting of negligence, contrary to

4. Therefore, each appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against each party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)