(영문) 대구고등법원 2013.4.3.선고 2012나1178 판결

1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and all of the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the revoked part are dismissed.

2. All incidental appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Purport of claim, purport of appeal and incidental appeal

1. Purport of claim

The defendant 41,473,440 won to the plaintiff Eul, 22,374,00 won to the plaintiff Eul, 39,277,952 won to the plaintiff Eul, and 19,907,251 won to the plaintiff Eul (and less than KRW 33,178,752 won X inheritance shares of less than KRW 3/5.5; hereinafter the same shall apply), and 13,271,500 won to the plaintiff F (=3,178,752 won X inheritance shares of KRW 2/50), and each of them shall be 5% per annum from May 15, 2010 to January 20, 2012 to the plaintiff Eul, and 19,907,251 won per annum to the plaintiff Eul, and 19,907,251 won per annum to the plaintiff Eul, and 20% per annum to the changes of the plaintiff's complaint and the defendant's complaint to the plaintiff's claim.

2. The defendant's purport of appeal

The text of paragraph (1) is as follows.

3. Purport of the plaintiffs' incidental appeal

All of the part against the plaintiffs falling under the part ordering additional payment under the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs A 24,884,064 won, 13,424,40 won to the plaintiff B, 23,56,772 won to the plaintiff C, 11,94,351 won to the plaintiff E, 7,962,900 won to the plaintiff F, and 5% per annum from May 15, 2010 to January 20, 2012, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

Plaintiff A, B, C, and net D (the net D died during the instant lawsuit and the Plaintiff E, F took over the lawsuit; hereinafter the Plaintiff referred to as “Plaintiffs for convenience”) is a person who supplies electricity to each of the above greenhouse greenhouses of the Plaintiffs, who supplies electricity to the Plaintiff. The Defendant is a person who supplies electricity to the Plaintiff. (The Plaintiff is a person who supplies electricity to each of the above greenhouse greenhouses of the Plaintiffs.)

B. The contract for the supply of electricity and the extension of contract power between the plaintiffs and the defendant

1) The Plaintiffs concluded a contract with the Defendant for the supply of electricity for agricultural use, and operated electric installations, such as a stack installed in a vinyl house, upon the supply of electricity from the Defendant. The major contents of the terms and conditions of the supply of electricity are as follows at the time of the intent

§ 27. [Deposit Points]

1. Whether a customer (referring to the plaintiff; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Korea War (referring to the defendant; hereinafter the same shall apply) receive and supply electricity.

The point is the connection point between the defendant's electric lines or the customer's electric installations.

Article 39 (Facilities, such as Protective Devices, etc. for Use of Electricity)

(1) It is likely that a customer interferes with or is likely to interfere with the electric utility of other customers for any of the following reasons:

(2) If there is or is likely to be an impediment to electric installations, the customer's burden shall be borne.

the mediation device or protection device recognized by Han-gain shall be installed at a place where electricity is used, and especially necessary

In the case of change of the supply facilities or installation of the exclusive supply facilities, the electricity shall be used.

1. Where the load of each party significantly loses a sentence;

2. Where the voltage or the frequencies are remarkably changed;

3. Where the radio wave form is seriously distorted;

4. 현저한 고조파(高潤波) 를 발생할 경우

5. Other similar reasons.

(2) Where the supply of electricity is suspended or determined due to any inevitable cause, economic loss may be incurred.

Customer, including an emergency power plant, a non-regular power source supply system (UPS), a partnership protection system, a power failure alarm system, etc.

It is necessary to install an urgent self-protection device.

Article 47 [Suspension of Supply or Restriction on Use]

(1) When electricity supply falls under any of the following cases, it shall be inevitable to suspend the supply of electricity or restrict the use of electricity:

may be eligible.

1. Where the Minister of Knowledge Economy instructs pursuant to statutes;

2. Where it is inevitable due to the adjustment of supply and demand of electricity;

3. Where trouble occurs or is likely to occur in the electric installations of one electric wave;

4. Where it is inevitable due to construction works for repairing, altering, etc. the electric installations of Korea;

5. Where severe imbalances or changes in voltages and frequencies occur or are feared to occur.

6. Cases of emergency or other force majeure.

7. Where required for the electric safety.

(2) In case of paragraph (1), the contents thereof shall be notified to customers in advance by newspaper, broadcast or other means.

D. However, I do not have this exception in urgent or inevitable circumstances.

Article 49 (Exemption from Liability for Damages) No person shall be liable for damages suffered by the customer for any of the following reasons:

1. Where the electric utility contract is terminated under Article 15;

2. Where the supply of electricity is suspended under Article 45.

3. The provisions of Article 47 (Suspension of Supply or Restriction on Use) shall apply to reasons not attributable to the intention or gross negligence of the former.

(d) Where the supply of electricity is suspended or restricted;

4. In the case of leakage or other accidents due to reasons not attributable to the former; and

Article 52 (Limitation of Liability for Electric Safety) The limit of responsibility for the safety, maintenance and repair of electric installations between the customer and the Han Power Complex shall be the point of supply and demand, and the customer shall assume the responsibility for the power generation side, and the customer shall assume the responsibility respectively: Provided, That if it is inevitable due to the conditions of on-site snow or technical factors, it may be the limit of responsibility for the electrical safety after consultation with the customer for designation other than that of the designated supply and demand.

Article 53 (Cooperation of Customers for Electric Safety)

(1) Installation, alteration or repair works of things that customers may directly affect the Korea-Japan supply facilities;

(2) if the electric safety distance set forth in the technological standard of the Electric Utility Act is not sufficient,

(c)A prior notice shall be given prior to the date of such notice, and the prior notice shall particularly require for electrical safety.

I may require the customer to change the content of the construction.

2) Moters installed in each of the plaintiffs' greenhouses causes the supply of electricity in three ways. The defendant set up three 30 KVA voltages (a total capacity of 90KVA, hereinafter referred to as "the transformations of this case") and supplied electricity in three ways to the farmers of 15, including the plaintiffs. The sum of the contract power of the above 15 KW was 95K.

3) In around 2009, the Defendant requested the extension of contract power on the ground that part of the 15 farm households, including the Plaintiffs, used electricity exceeding the contract power capacity. Accordingly, some farmers, including the Plaintiffs, entered into a contract with the Defendant for the extension of contract power capacity from February 27, 2009 to September 9, 2009, respectively, including the expanded power capacity (60KW) and the total sum of contract power capacity of 15 farm households, which included the expanded power capacity (60KW).

4) Even after the conclusion of the power extension contract, the Defendant had already been used and supplied electricity to the Plaintiffs. The Defendant’s management standards for power distribution design (DS-3400 transformers-3) are as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

1) On January 7, 2010, at around 04:30, each of the COS Furz A (hereinafter referred to as "curz of this case") among the COS Furz in the instant transformers A, B, and C, caused an accident in which the supply of electricity to 15 farm households, including the plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as "accident in this case") was suspended, and the employee belonging to the defendant reached the scene at around 09:10 on the same day, and exchanged the instant Furz and resumed the supply of electricity at around 10:0.

2) At the time of the instant accident, only the 7th farm households, including the Plaintiffs, among the 15th farm households at the time of the instant accident (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs, etc.”) used electricity, and the sum of the contract power of the Plaintiffs, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs, etc.”) is 102KW.

3) The instant accident led to the situation in which the Plaintiffs were unable to harvest her son and her friend, which had been cultivated in each of the plastic greenhouses.

4) On January 11, 2010, the Defendant replaced the instant variable with three 50KVA voltages (total 150KW capacity).

【Reasons for Recognition】

The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 10, 12, 16, 18, 19, 24, 28, 32, and 38 (including each number, if there is a lot number; hereinafter the same shall apply), each statement on the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 10, 12, 16, 19, 24,

2. Whether liability for damages has arisen;

A. Whether the Defendant is liable for nonperformance under the instant electricity supply contract

1) Determination as to the cause of claim

Since the Defendant entered into each of the above electricity supply contracts with the Plaintiffs, it is obligated to stably supply the contract power to the Plaintiffs pursuant to each of the above supply contracts, and therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to the sudden suspension of power supply.

2) Determination as to the defendant's defense of immunity

A) Summary of the parties’ respective arguments

(1) The defendant asserts the grounds for discharge as follows.

According to each contract for the supply of electricity entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendant, the defendant may suspend the supply of electricity or restrict the use of electricity (Article 47 of the former Terms and Conditions of Supply), and the defendant shall not be liable for damages suffered by the customer due to the suspension, etc. of the supply of electricity (Article 49 subparagraph 3 of the former Terms and Conditions of Supply) if the defendant had no intention or gross negligence on the part of the defendant with respect to the grounds for the suspension, etc. of the supply of electricity (Article 47 of the former Terms and Conditions of Supply). However, the accident of this case, however, the defendant shall maintain the normal rate so that the plaintiffs, etc. who are supplied with electricity from the defendant to use the electricity do not go to the upper part of the former Terms and Conditions of the former Terms and Conditions of Supply, and install and operate the electric installations without complying with the normal rate of the latter Terms and Conditions of the former Terms and Conditions of Supply of this case, and the defendant shall not be held liable for damages caused by the plaintiff's intentional negligence or gross negligence.

(2) The Plaintiffs are disputing as follows.

In accordance with the instant electricity supply contract, the Defendant supplied electricity to the Plaintiffs: (a) did not implement the change voltage device (150KW) more than the existing (90KW) so that it can cope with the expanded amount of electricity due to the extension of contract power with the Plaintiffs; and (b) did not implement the accident in the instant case, even though it is necessary to inform the Plaintiffs, who are admitted, of the installation of electric installations by maintaining the upper-level rate so that it does not go too much to the point of the change pressure device, and to seek cooperation and confirm its implementation, the accident in the instant case ultimately occurred. Accordingly, the accident in the instant case occurred due to the Defendant’s intentional or gross negligence, and the Defendant cannot be exempt from the liability to compensate the Plaintiffs for the damages caused by the instant accident.

B) Relevant legal principles

When a failure occurs or is likely to occur in the Defendant’s electrical structure, the Defendant may suspend or restrict the use of the electricity supply. In this case, the terms and conditions of the electricity supply that the Defendant is not liable to compensate for the damage caused by the expropriation have the nature of the terms and conditions of the exemption. In a case where the Defendant’s intentional or gross negligence is deemed to apply even to the case caused by the Defendant’s intentional or gross negligence, it shall be deemed null and void as it is in violation of Article 7 subparag. 1 of the Regulation of Pharmaceutical Officers Act. However, only in other cases, it shall be deemed null and void (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da11344, Dec. 12

On the other hand, it is reasonable to view that in the case of the electricity industry, the concept of gross negligence equivalent to the intention that the Defendant is not exempt from the Defendant’s liability in the case of the suspension of the supply of electricity, such as that the Defendant actually emphasizes the supply to the general consumers, and that the technologies and responsibilities necessary for the maintenance and management of the relevant facilities are actually owned by itself, and that in the case of the suspension of the supply of electricity, the concept of gross negligence significantly fulfills the duty of care of the good manager that should be done in light of the Defendant’s special status (see, e.g., Supreme Court

C) Determination

Based on the above legal principles, we examine whether the defendant's defense of exemption (the defendant's intentional or gross negligence is nonexistent with respect to the occurrence of the accident in this case) is admitted (in light of the above legal principles, it is deemed that the defendant's above exemption provision stipulated in the electricity supply clauses of this case is valid).

(1) Grounds for occurrence of the instant accident

As seen earlier, the instant accident occurred due to the Furst's use of this case, and we examine what the Furst's direct cause was used.

을 제1 내지 9, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19, 25, 27, 31, 34, 35, 37호증의 각 기재, 당심 증 인 000, 000의 각 일부 증언, 제1심법원의 한국전기안전공사에 대한 사실조회 결과 및 사실조회보완 결과에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 이 사건 사고로 인하여 각 비닐하 우스 내에 있던 모터(3상 전기설비) 20대가 파손되었고, 위 파손된 모터 20대의 전력 합계는 47KW인 사실, 위 파손된 모터들은 이 사건 사고 당시 가동되고 있었는데 이 사건 사고로 인하여 파손된 사실, 원고들 등은 실제로 계약전력량(102KW)을 초과하여 전력 합계 243KW의 전기설비들을 설치하였고, 그 중 3상 전기설비들의 전력 합계는 113KW, 1상(단상) 전기설비들의 전력 합계는 130KW인 사실, 원고들 등이 설치한 전 기설비들 중에는 냉방용과 난방용이 함께 있기는 하나 대부분 동시에 가동될 수 있는 설비이고 냉방전용 설비( 이 사건 사고 당시 가동하지 않았을 것으로 추정되는 설비) 는 그 전력량이 약 2KW 이하로서 미미한 사실, 원고들 등이 설치한 1상 전기설비들 중 백열등 및 전조등 전력의 합계가 약 115.42KW로 1상 전기설비 전력의 대부분을 차지 하는 사실, 원고들 등이 설치한 1상 전기설비들 중 백열등 및 전조등을 모두 가동할 경우 원고들 등은 계약전력량 102KW를 초과하여 약 162.42KW(3상 전기설비 모터 47KW + 1상 전기설비 백열등 및 전조등 115.42KW) 의 전력을 사용하게 되는 사실, 이 사건 사고(전기공급 중단) 발생 시점은 새벽이었고 당시 외부 온도는 영하 15.2도로서 매우 추운 날씨였던 사실, 이 사건 사고 발생 당시 원고들 등은 자신들이 설치한 1상 전기설비들 중 백열등 및 전조등의 전부 또는 거의 대부분을 함께 가동하고 있었던 사 실(만일 원고들 등이 자신들이 설치한 1상 전기설비들 중 백열등 및 전조등을 2교대 또는 3교대 방식이나 릴레이 방식으로 가동하였다면, 비록 이 사건 변압기의 각 상별 부하 점유율이 아래에서 보는 바와 같이 불평형한 상태였다고 하더라도, 이 사건 휴즈 가 용단될 가능성은 별로 없었을 것으로 보인다), 피고는 이 사건 사고 직후인 2010. 1. 8. 18:00경부터 2010. 1. 10. 08:00경까지 무선부하감시시스템으로 30분 단위로 이 사건 변압기의 각 상별 전압 및 전류를 측정하였으며, 이에 따라 확인된 전체시간 최 대치 상별 부하 점유율은 A상 42.4% , B상 21.0%, C상 36.6% 이고(위와 같은 상별 부 하 점유율에 원고들 등이 설치한 전기설비들의 전력 합계 243KW를 적용하면, 각 상별 전력 부하분포는 A상 103KW, B상 51KW, C상 89KW가 된다), 위와 같은 각 상의 부 하 점유율의 불평형률은 약 64.2% 로서 그에 관한 기준치(30 %)를 훨씬 초과한 사실, 이 사건 퓨즈의 정격전류는 3A로 30KVA 변압기에 사용되고 있는데, COS 퓨즈의 용단 특 성에 의하면 정격전류 3A의 경우 약 5A 이하(변압기의 약 210 % 부하율)는 상시운전 영역이나, 그 이상(5A 이상)에서는 장시간 운전시 용단되고, 이를 전력으로 환산하면 그 용단이 발생하는 전력량은 66KW 정도인 사실, 이 사건 퓨즈의 용단부 형상과 과전 류 모의용단부의 형상을 비교한 결과 그 특성이 일치하는 사실, 지식경제부 민원관련 조사위원회 및 한국전기안전공사는 농어촌지역의 부하특성을 고려할 때 이 사건 사고 당시 이 사건 변압기의 용량이 부족한 상태는 아니었으나 COS 퓨즈가 한 상만 용단된 점을 감안할 때 전기설비가 한 상에 집중적으로 설치되어 이 사건 퓨즈가 용단되었다. 고 판단한 사실 등을 인정할 수 있고, 갑 제9호증의 일부 기재와 당심 증인 서재혁의 일부 증언만으로는 위 사실인정을 뒤집기에 부족하며 달리 반증이 없다 .

According to the above facts, when converting into power, approximately 68.86KW [A] around 68.86K at the time of the instant accident [A] was using approximately 42.4% of the power capacity of the electric installations presumed to be used by the plaintiffs, etc., 47KW at the location of the third installations + 115.42KW]x 42.4% of the electric installations at the location of 115.4%(A) at the time of the instant accident (6.5% of the power capacity). In full view of these circumstances and facts, it is reasonable to view that the instant accident was not permitted by the plaintiffs, etc. at their own discretion in compliance with the average facility rate of 30.5% of their gross negligence or 4.5% of their gross negligence by failing to comply with the agreement rate of 40% of their own facilities at the time of the instant accident (5.4% of their gross negligence or 5% of their gross negligence).

The plaintiffs asserted that the blocking machine installed in the greenhouse of the plaintiffs et al. at the time of the accident of this case does not operate in excess of the contract power amount. However, considering these circumstances, the plaintiffs et al.' statements and images as stated in Eul evidence Nos. 22, 23, 25, and 31 and the testimony at the time of the trial, the plaintiffs et al. installed a more large-scale blocking machine for contract power volume in each vinyl house. In this case, even if the plaintiffs et al. used many electricity at work beyond contract power, it can be recognized that the blocking machine installed in each vinyl house of this case is not operated first, and it is not sufficient to accept the above judgment (the plaintiffs' assertion that the blocking machine installed in the greenhouse greenhouse of this case, such as the plaintiffs et al. at the time of the accident of this case was operated in excess of contract power amount, since the plaintiffs et al. used the above al. at the time of the accident of this case more than 162.42.2)

(2) As to whether the changer of the instant changer was replaced (capacity increase)

6 through 8,12,18,19,26,27, and 31 evidence of the first instance court, inquiry results on the National Electrical Safety Corporation at the first instance court, and the overall purport of arguments as a result of fact inquiry, it can be driven within the range of 110% of the changed voltage capacity. Thus, the changed voltage of this case can be used within the range of 19W (90K x 1.1). The capacity of changed voltage of 199W is calculated at an appropriate capacity, taking into account the rate of acceptance of parts required for changing voltage, maximum load, contract power, etc. at 10% of the changed voltage of each of the changed voltage of 7.0% after the request of the plaintiffs, the defendant regularly checks the rate of use of the changed voltage of 10% of the changed voltage of each of the contract at the rate of 10% of the changed voltage of each of the changed voltage of 7.0% of the changed voltage of the contract at the time of the change of 7.0% of the changed voltage of the contract.

In full view of the above facts and the criteria for the change of the capacity of the Defendant’s snow pressure apparatus as seen earlier, even if the contract amount of the Plaintiffs, etc. has been increased, it cannot be said that the Defendant had any intention to replace or install the change pressure apparatus by increasing the capacity of the change pressure apparatus (the mere fact that the Defendant actually increased the capacity of the change pressure apparatus immediately after the occurrence of the accident in this case does not recognize that the Defendant had the Defendant’s duty to do so). Moreover, even if the Defendant assumes the above obligation to the Defendant, taking into account the aforementioned circumstances, the Defendant’s failure to replace or install the change due to the increase of the capacity of the change pressure apparatus constitutes a general progress room, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s duty of care is gross negligence significantly lacking its duty of care.

In this regard, the plaintiffs argued that the defendant should replace the change pressure apparatus of this case with the change pressure apparatus of 210KVA capacity according to the extension of contract power capacity of the plaintiffs et al., but the above change pressure apparatus of this case was calculated with the assumption of "75% of the amount used for the optimal operation condition of the change pressure apparatus," and the above fact inquiry result is irrelevant to the above fact-finding of the change pressure apparatus as recommended matters to enhance the efficiency of the change pressure apparatus and to drive safely, and in this case, the change pressure engine capacity to be installed considering the side characteristics of the change pressure apparatus of this case is sufficient to be 79 KVA in rural area, so the above fact-finding results alone indicate that the defendant did not have a sufficient capacity of the change pressure apparatus of this case, and therefore, the above fact-finding results do not admit the defendant's intent or gross negligence in order to increase the change pressure of this case in relation to the occurrence of the accident of this case.

(3) As to the liability to maintain a separate balance between electrical installations

As seen earlier, according to the terms and conditions of the electricity supply of this case, the limit of the responsibility for the safety and maintenance of the electric equipment between the plaintiffs and the defendant is a supply point (Article 27 of the said terms and conditions of the electricity supply), and in cases where the load between the plaintiffs and the defendant significantly lose equity and thus hinder the defendant's electric equipment, or is likely to hinder the defendant's electric equipment, the plaintiffs must install the adjustment device or protection device acknowledged by the defendant at their own expense at the place of electric use (Article 39 (1) 1 of the said terms and conditions of the electricity supply), and in cases where the plaintiffs install goods directly affecting the defendant's supply facilities, they must notify the defendant of the details thereof in advance (Article

In addition, it is hard to understand that the plaintiffs et al. were to construct electric installations on one occasion by selecting an operator of electric installations in charge of the construction of electric installations regardless of the defendant, so it is difficult to understand that the operator of electric installations constructed to go up to one occasion, the testimony of 00 witnesses, the fact-finding results of the first instance court's first instance court's fact-finding, and the fact-finding supplementation results of the first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's fact-finding, the third electric installations are distributed equally to three. In this case, the plaintiffs et al. are finally installed in the first instance (A), and the first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's second instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's second instance's second instance's error.

According to the above facts, it is difficult to view that the defendant, who did not receive notification as to whether to install electrical facilities in the greenhouse of the plaintiffs, etc., is responsible for the maintenance of the upper balance of the electrical facilities of the plaintiffs, etc., or the defendant, who did not receive notification as to whether to install electrical facilities under one of the plaintiffs, etc., is responsible for the maintenance of the upper balance of the electrical facilities of the plaintiffs, etc., or has the duty to seek cooperation and to confirm whether to implement the electrical facilities by providing the plaintiffs with the first aid by maintaining a separate balance. Thus, even if the defendant did not inform the plaintiff, etc. of the installation of the electrical facilities by maintaining a separate average rate so that they do not go to the point of the current voltage, and it was insufficient to reverse the judgment that there was no intentional or gross negligence by the defendant as to the occurrence of the accident of the accident of this case, the plaintiffs' above assertion is not received.

D) Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant's intentional or gross negligence does not exist with respect to the occurrence of the accident of this case (as seen earlier, the accident of this case seems to have occurred due to the negligence of the plaintiffs, etc.). Therefore, the defendant's defense of exemption from liability for the damage of the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case is reasonable, and therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

B. Whether the defendant is liable for any defect in the installation or management of the defendant's structure

In addition, the plaintiffs are also arguing that the defendant, who is the owner and possessor of the transformer of this case, is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the suspension of power supply caused by defects in the installation and preservation of the transformer of this case.

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 for its use. In determining whether such safety requirements are met, 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. In particular, in the case of the defendant who bears the duty to exclusively own or occupy an electric structure in Korea and takes exclusive advantage of the interests of the installation, while in the case of the defendant who bears the duty to preserve and manage the structure, the standards for electric utility or electric equipment technology can only be the criteria for considering the existence of defects in the installation and preservation of the structure, and it shall not be absolute. Thus, even if the defendant installed an electric structure in accordance with the standards of the above Act and subordinate statutes, it does not exempt the defendant from the duty to take measures to prevent accidents suitable to yellow circumstances, such as natural and human changes in the surrounding environment that occurred after the installation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da2878.

In the instant case, in light of the aforementioned adopted evidence and the factual basis, the Plaintiffs’ assertion and the present evidence alone are insufficient to recognize that the Defendant, while installing and preserving the transformers of the instant case, was unable to meet the safety ordinarily required according to its use, or that the Defendant did not take protective measures or preventive measures against accidents, which are required in light of social norms, even if considering the natural and human environmental changes, etc. surrounding the installation and preservation of the transformers of the instant case. Accordingly, there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion, which is based on the premise that there was a defect in the installation and preservation of the pressure apparatus of this case or other structures owned or owned by the defendant, and that the accident of this case occurred, is also without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims in this case are dismissed without any further review as to the scope of damages. Since the judgment of the court of first instance partially different conclusions are unfair, the defendant's appeal is accepted and the part against the defendant in the judgment of first instance against the defendant is revoked, all of the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to this part are dismissed, and the plaintiffs' incidental appeal which all the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to this part are recognized as the defendant's liability for damages is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.