[손해배상][집31(1)민,58;공1983.4.1.(701)489]
(a)in the case of a labor contract, the contractor's liability;
(b) The degree of the negligence of an employee in order to recognize the employer's responsibility due to the employee's actualization;
(c) Responsibility of the possessor or owner of a structure where a fire occurs due to a defect in the structure itself;
(d) The degree of negligence for recognizing the responsibility of the owner of an structure in case where the fire of the structure caused by an act of others other than the employee has inflicted damage on a third person
E. The meaning of "major negligence" as defined in the Liability for Fire Caused by Negligence Act
A. In general, since the relationship between the contractor and the contractor does not exist, the contractor is not liable as the employer for the illegal acts committed by the contractor or his employee. However, in the case of the so-called labor contract such as the case where the contractor directs a specific act against the contractor or awarding a specific project, the contractor is liable as the employer even if he is the contractor.
B. In a case where an employee causes a fire due to negligence in the performance of his duties and thereby causes a loss to a third party, the employer is liable to compensate the employee for the relevant loss only if the employee was grossly negligent.
C. In a case where a fire was directly caused by a defect in a certain structure, the possessor or owner of the structure shall be liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the fire pursuant to Article 758(1) of the Civil Act.
D. After a fire was caused by an independent act of another person, who is not an employee, the owner of the structure shall be liable for the damages inflicted on a third party in the course of burning and spreading it to the structure, only when the owner of the structure was grossly negligent in accordance with the Fire Liability Act.
E. The term "major negligence" under the Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by Negligence refers to "a situation in which a certain degree of attention is not required for an ordinary person even if it is not required, if it is easily illegal or harmful results can be predicted, but it inevitably lacks considerable attention to almost the same intention". Thus, it cannot be said that there is a gross negligence solely on the ground that there was a fire irrelevant to a fire, or that there was a manual alarm and a manual alarm, which did not operate the automatic alarm system.
a.b.Article 756(c) of the Civil Code, article 758(d)(e) of the Civil Code;
Supreme Court Decision 65Da1688 delivered on October 19, 1965, 74Da481 delivered on April 8, 1975, 78Da2245 delivered on February 13, 1979, and 62Da452 delivered on October 25, 1962
No.S. 9 Plaintiffs, et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee
Attorney Lee Ho-ho, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant 1 other than New-Seoul hotel
Kim Jong-bok
Gwangju High Court Decision 80Na207,539 decided January 15, 1981
Of the judgment below, the part against Defendant New-Seoul Hotel is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.
The appeal by the defendant bank shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal by this part shall be borne by the same defendant.
1. First, the defendant bank's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the above non-party 3's office malket malket malket malket malket malket malket malket malket malket malket malket malket malket malket malket malket malket malket malket malket malket malket malket malket malket malket malket malket malket malket malket malket malket malket malket malket malket malket malket malket malket m.
In addition, according to the reasoning of the above decision, it is somewhat ambiguous whether the defendant bank directly employed the non-party 3 or ordered the non-party 3 to work for the non-party 1 Kim Jong-sik, but compared with the context of the above before and after the contract, the ordinary printing work of the non-party 3, etc., which was ordered by the non-party 3 to work from the defendant bank, but the non-party 3, who was recommended by the non-party 1 to work directly under the direction of the non-party 1's pen, copying, security, etc., the head of the personnel administration division, and the non-party 3 had the non-party 4 work for the non-party 1 to work for the non-party 1's pen, copying, etc., and the non-party 5's non-party 1 to work for the non-party 4's own reason is not inconsistent with the reasoning of the judgment below that the non-party 2 ordered the non-party 3 to work for the non-party 197's own work as the contractor's damages.
2. We examine the grounds of appeal by Defendant New-Seoul Hotel Attorney.
(1) In a case where an employee causes a fire due to negligence in the course of performing his duties and thereby causes a loss to a third party, the employer shall be liable for the damage only if the employee was grossly negligent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 62Da452, Oct. 25, 1962). In a case where a fire is directly caused by a defect in a certain structure itself, the possessor or the owner of the relevant structure shall be liable for the damages suffered by the fire under Article 758(1) of the Civil Act. However, in a case where the fire was caused by an independent act of a third party, other than the employee, the owner of the relevant structure shall be liable for the damages caused to the third party in the course of burning and spreading the structure, limited to the case where the third party was grossly negligent under the Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by Negligence, and the gross negligence as referred to in the Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by Negligence refers to a case where the ordinary person was not paid considerable attention to the degree required, if it could easily be unlawful, harmful result may have been anticipated.
(2) However, according to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that there was a fire or gross negligence on the part of Defendant New-Seoul hotel employees, or that there was a fire or gross negligence on the part of Nonparty 3’s accommodation at the time of the above-mentioned hotel, and that there was no fire or fire-fighting accident on the part of Defendant 2, and that there was no fire or fire-fighting accident at the time of the above-mentioned hotel, and that there was no fire or fire-fighting accident at the time of the above-mentioned hotel, and that there was no fire or fire-fighting accident on the part of Defendant 2, which caused the fire or fire-fighting accident of the above-mentioned hotel, and that there was no fire or fire-fighting accident on the 3rd floor of the above-mentioned hotel, and that there was no fire or fire-fighting accident of the above 4th floor as well as that there was no fire or fire-fighting accident at the time of the above-mentioned hotel, and that there was no fire or fire-fighting accident of the above 5th floor.
It is necessary to make detailed decisions on how fire was burned due to the failure of a warning by the automatic alarm device, and how the evacuation of the guests was delayed to a certain extent (According to the witness's new testimony that was not rejected by the original trial, 7 guests, including Nonparty Nos. 306, including Nonparty Nos. 4 and 6, were accommodated in the office of 306 at the time, but only she was evacuated safely through the window, and only she was found to have died while she evacuated through the corridor).
Nevertheless, without further detailed deliberation and determination as to this point, the court below found that there was a serious fault in the execution of the business of the defendant hotel representative with respect to the death of the old-age interference caused by the fire to the defendant hotel without any evidence, or there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the liability for damages caused by the fire, or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the failure of reason, and such illegality affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, it is reasonable to point this out.
3. Therefore, the part against Defendant New-Seoul Hotel among the original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to Gwangju High Court which is the original judgment in order to re-examine and determine this part. The appeal by Defendant Bank of Korea is dismissed, and the costs of appeal by the dismissed part are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)