Whether Article 758(1) of the Civil Act is applicable to the liability for damages for the portion of fire-fighting caused by defects in the installation and preservation of structures under the Act on the Liability for Fire-Fighting (wholly amended by Act No. 9648, May 8, 2009) (affirmative)

Unlike the former Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by Negligence (wholly amended by Act No. 9648, May 8, 2009) (wholly amended by Act No. 9648), the Act only provides for special provisions on the reduction of the amount of damages, but does not impose any provision on the establishment of liability for damages. Thus, unless otherwise provided for in other Acts, the liability of the occupant or the owner of a structure for damages to compensate for a fire caused by defects in the installation and preservation of a structure shall be determined by the provisions of the Civil Act. Therefore, in cases where proximate causal relation exists between the defect in the installation and preservation of a structure and the damage caused by a fire, Article 758(1) of the Civil Act shall be applied, and unless it is gross negligence, the liability of the occupant or owner of a structure for damages may be reduced by the amended Act No. 35 of the Liability for Fire Caused by Negligence Act.

The former Act on the Responsibility for Fire Caused (wholly amended by Act No. 9648 of May 8, 2009), Articles 1, 2, and 3 of the Act on the Responsibility for Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Fire Caused by the Civil Act, Article 758(1) of the Civil Act

ELa District Damage Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Democratic, Attorneys Yoon Jae-sik et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Lee Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2009Na108001 decided June 30, 2010

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. The former Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by Negligence (amended by Act No. 9648 of May 8, 2009; hereinafter “former Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Negligence”) provides that “The provisions of Article 750 of the Civil Act shall apply only when there is gross negligence in the case of fire caused by fire,” but Article 1 of the Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Act No. 9648 of May 8, 2009 (hereinafter “former Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Act No. 9648) provides that “The purpose of this Act is to prescribe special cases of Article 765 of the Civil Act on the Reduction of the Compensation for Fire Caused by Fire caused by Fire caused by Fire caused by Fire by Fire caused by Fire.”

As above, unlike the former Fire Liability Act, the amended Fire Liability Act only provides special provisions on reduction of the amount of damages, but does not impose any provision that limits the establishment of liability for damages. Thus, whether the possessor or the owner of a structure is liable for damages on a fire caused by a defect in the installation and preservation of a structure shall be determined pursuant to the provisions of the Civil Act, unless otherwise provided for in other Acts. Therefore, in cases where there is a proximate causal relation between the defect in the installation and preservation of a structure and the damage therefrom as well as the liability for damages on a fire caused by a defect in the installation and preservation of a structure, if there is a direct causal relation between the defect in the installation and preservation of a structure, and unless the fire is caused by gross negligence, the person liable for damages on the part that was burned from the fire may be reduced the amount of damages pursuant to Article 3 of the amended Fire Liability Act.

B. Under the former Fire Liability Act, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant is liable for damages under Article 758(1) of the Civil Act to the non-party company that suffered from a fire in the installation and preservation of a structure, on the premise that Article 758(1) of the Civil Act shall apply and that Article 750 of the Civil Act shall apply to the liability for damages to the part destroyed by the fire, as in the former Fire Liability Act, to the damages to the part destroyed by the fire, and on the ground that the damages to the ice company that caused the fire of this case (hereinafter “non-party company”) are not directly due to the fire that occurred from the Defendant’s building, but directly due to the wind that caused the fire to the building of the non-party company that destroyed and expanded, and thus, Article 758(1) of the Civil Act cannot be applied.

However, as stated by the court below, even if the fire that occurred in the defendant's building caused damage to the non-party company on the wind that the fire occurred in the defendant's building was burned and expanded and moved to an adjacent non-party company's building, if there is a defect in the installation and preservation of the defendant's building and there is a proximate causal relation between the defect in the installation and preservation and the damage suffered by the non-party company, the defendant shall be liable to compensate for the damage in accordance with Article 758

Therefore, the court below should examine and determine whether there is a defect in the installation and preservation of the defendant's building, whether there is a proximate causal relation between the defect in the installation and preservation of the building and the damage suffered by the non-party company, and determine whether the defendant is liable to compensate the non-party company pursuant to Article 758 (1) of the Civil Act.

Unlike this, the court below's measures are erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the interpretation and application of Article 758 (1) of the Civil Act, Articles 1 and 2 of the amended Liability Act, and the grounds for appeal pointing this out are with merit.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)