[1] The meaning of "defect in the construction and preservation of a structure" under Article 758 (1) of the Civil Code and the standard for its determination

[2] The case holding that there is a defect in the installation and preservation of a hot blast, in case where the smoke of a hot blast is installed near the tent, which is a inflammable substance,

[3] The meaning of "serious negligence" under the Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by Negligence

[4] The case holding that there is a gross negligence under the Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by Fire, in a case where a fire occurred within five minutes after a hot wave was abandoned without any follow-up measures without checking whether the fire occurred inside a hot wave was completely extinguishing, and a fire occurred again within five minutes after the place where the fire occurred out of the place where the fire occurred

[1] Defect in the installation and preservation of a structure under Article 758(1) of the Civil Act refers to a state in which a structure fails to meet the ordinary safety requirements according to its use. In determining whether such safety is satisfied, it shall be determined on the basis of whether the installer and custodian of the structure has fulfilled the duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the risk of the structure.

[2] The case holding that there is a defect in the installation and preservation of a hot blast in the case where the hot blast is installed near the tent, which is a inflammable substance, in the vicinity of the tent

[3] The gross negligence under the Act on the Responsibility for Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Negligence refers to a situation in which, without due care required for an ordinary person, it can easily anticipate the result of illegal and harmful acts even though it can be predicted.

[4] The case holding that there is a gross negligence under the Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by Fire, in a case where a fire in a hot wave occurred again within five minutes from the place where the fire occurred, without checking whether the fire in a hot wave occurred completely and without taking any follow-up measures, and a fire occurs again within five minutes from the place where the fire occurred.

[1] Article 758(1) of the Civil Act / [2] Article 758(1) of the Civil Act / [3] Article 758(1) of the Civil Act / [4] Article 758

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Da16328 delivered on October 28, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 3112), Supreme Court Decision 97Da2702 delivered on October 10, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3446), Supreme Court Decision 98Da17381 delivered on October 23, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 2728), Supreme Court Decision 9Da45413 delivered on December 24, 199 (Gong200Sang, 306) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 90Da11509 delivered on April 9, 199 (Gong1991, 1341), Supreme Court Decision 200Da396395 delivered on October 36, 195 (Gong1995, 199) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 90Da1653979 delivered on May 196, 19695

[Judgment of the court below]

Yang-Support Tools Co., Ltd. (Law Firm White, Attorneys Yang Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 98Na88 delivered on June 30, 1999

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

A. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below's determination was just and acceptable, and there was no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete trial as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal, and there was no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or incomplete trial as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. The ground of appeal on this point is without merit.

B. The defect in the installation and preservation of a structure under Article 758(1) of the Civil Act refers to a state in which a structure fails to meet safety requirements ordinarily required according to its use. In determining whether such safety requirements are met, the determination shall be based on whether the installer and custodian of the structure has fulfilled the duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the risk of the structure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da16328, Oct. 28, 1994; 97Da27022, Oct. 10, 197).

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, since it can be known that the heat of this case is a product heating by being supplied with high inflammable petroleum from fuel tanks and burning it inside the hot wave, the risk of fire inside the hot wave in the process of burning the fuel is always likely to occur, and if a fire occurs inside the hot wave, the heat and flame may be transmitted externally through the heat connected to the hot wave, and it shall not be installed adjacent to inflammable substances in social norms. It is within the scope of the obligation to take measures for protection generally required by social norms. Accordingly, if the Defendant, who is the installer and custodian of the hot wave of this case, installed access to the hot wave 20 to 30 cm from the front or upper roof of the Plaintiff’s building, which is easy to burn up the hot wave without fulfilling such obligation, it cannot be said that there is any defect in the installation and preservation of the hot wave of this case due to the lack of ordinary safety.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to defects in the installation and preservation of structures. The grounds for appeal on this point are not acceptable.

2. On the second ground for appeal

The gross negligence under the Act on the Responsibility for Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Negligence refers to a situation in which, without due care to the extent required of ordinary persons, it could have easily predicted the result of illegal and harmful acts, and where it lacks significant attention similar to almost the same intent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Da11509, Apr. 9, 1991; 94Da36506, Oct. 13, 1995; 95Da22887, Feb. 23, 1996).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the non-party 1 and 2, who is an employee of the defendant company, discovered the primary fire that occurred within the hot wind, and fighting the fire using the fire extinguisher, did not confirm whether the fire seems to be inflammable in the glass window of the hot wind engine, and left the resting room, which is the place where the hot wind was destroyed, and did not take measures such as moving the hot wind to the safe place or moving the hot wind to the fire station or reporting it to the company-related or the fire station such as security guards. Since the fire occurred again, the court below held that the non-party 1 and 2 had gross negligence under the Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by Negligence.

In light of the above legal principles and records, we affirm the above judgment of the court below, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of the Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by Negligence. The grounds of appeal on this point cannot be accepted.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant who is the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)