2014 Ghana 121843 Compensation (as referred to in this paragraph)

1

2

3

4

[Defendant-Appellant] Park △△△

Korea Housing Management Corporation

△△△△

Law Firm △△, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee]

July 21, 2015

August 18, 2015

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff A 4, 421,685 won each of them and 5% per annum from February 18, 2014 to August 18, 2015, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 70% is borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Defendant 20,000,000 won, Plaintiff B, C, and D respectively, and 13,33,333 won, respectively, to Plaintiff A and its subordinate officers.

B. From February 18, 2014 to the service date of the complaint of this case, 5% per annum and the day following the day of complete payment.

For up to twenty-five percent (25%) interest per annum.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiffs are net E (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") residing in the main apartment located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Gangnam-gu.

The heir is the defendant is the housing management agency in charge of managing, maintaining, and repairing the main apartment complex.

나. 망인은 2014. 2. 16. 오후경 같은 아파트 4층에 사는 지인의 집에 방문하였다가 저녁식사 및 음주를 한 후 21 : 00경 ' 같은 아파트 4층에서 3층으로 내려가는 비상계단 ' ( 이하 ' 이 사건 계단 ' 이라 한다 ) 에서 발을 헛딛는 바람에 계단에서 구르면서 후두부 두개골 골절을 입었다 .

C. The Deceased was transferred to a nearby hospital on the same day: 22:06, but died on February 18, 2014: 30.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 10 (including branch numbers), each video of Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

Although the instant stairs ought to be maintained by emergency lighting so that they can maintain more than 1lx sculptures under the Fire Services-Fighting-Related Acts and subordinate statutes, since there is no inducement and emergency, etc. due to the Defendant’s violation of the Defendant’s duty to supervise the safety of public structures, the deceased’s death occurred, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff

3. Determination

A. The defect in the installation or preservation of a structure as referred to in Article 758(1) of the Civil Act refers to a situation in which a structure does not have safety ordinarily according to its purpose of use. In determining whether such safety is satisfied, it shall be determined on the basis of whether the installer or the custodian of the structure has fulfilled his/her duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the risk of the structure (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da61615, Feb. 11, 2010). Further, an accident resulting from a defect in the installation or preservation of a structure refers only to a case in which only the defect in the installation or preservation of the structure causes the occurrence of the damage, and even if the damage is caused by competition with the act of another third party or the act of a victim, the damage shall be deemed to have been caused by the defect in the installation or preservation of the structure so long as the defect in the construction or preservation becomes one of the common causes (see Supreme Court Decision 207Da61615, Jun. 6, 2007).

28. (2) In full view of the health room, Gap evidence No. 6, fact-finding results and the overall purport of oral argument as to whether lighting has operated properly in the instant stairs at the time of the accident (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da10139, Apr. 2, 200), it can be recognized that the instant stairs at the time were unable to operate lighting and that it was not easy for the deceased to rescue, and it is insufficient to reverse the recognition only with the entries in Eul evidence Nos. 5, 6, 9 (including the number). In addition, in full view of the fact that the instant stairs are freely available to all residents, and the emergency stairs need to be properly maintained and managed so that they can be evacuated and used promptly at any time, and that the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for any defect in the accident or the safety of the instant stairs, which caused the Plaintiffs’ negligence.

B. The Defendant’s liability ratio is limited to 30% in consideration of the circumstances surrounding the instant accident, such as (i) active damages (a) totaling KRW 9,658,610: KRW 803,110; funeral expenses: KRW 4,400,00 and KRW 4,455,50 (b) the instant accident was caused by the deceased’s loss; (ii) the deceased was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident; and (iii) the deceased could have avoided the use of lighting stairs; and (iv) the cause of the accident and all other circumstances shown in the instant argument.

(C) Property losses after the limitation of liability: 2,897, 583 won ( = 9,658,610 won x 30%) (2) (i.e., consolation money (a): 19,897, 583 won ( = 17,00,000 won + 2,897,583 won) in total as shown in the pleadings of the instant case, including the deceased’s age, the details and result of the occurrence of the accident: 17,00,00 won (b) in total: 19,897,583 won (= 17,000,000 won + 2,897,583 won).

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant has a duty to resist the existence and scope of the obligation to perform in this case from February 18, 2014, which is the date of death of the deceased, to the plaintiff A, who is the wife of the deceased ( = 19,897,583 x less than 3/9, and 3/683 x less than won), to compensate each of the plaintiffs who are the rest of the deceased, for delay calculated at a rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from February 18, 2014, which is the date of the judgment of this case, until August 18, 2015, and from the next day to the date of complete payment, 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Gin-won