In the preservation and management of a building, where there are errors to the owners and the occupants, the liability for damages.

The owner of a female-style building leases a building that is likely to start out of the chimney and that is likely to start up into the guest room, to a person who intends to operate a female-style business as it is through a cresh between windows, and the lessee of the building also has the owner repair the above defect, or caused the owner to repair the defect to go up to the guest room without removing such defect by himself, and caused the person to be addicted to the guest room and die due to addiction to the guest room. Therefore, the above accident is caused by the concurrence of the causes attributable to the owner and the possessor, and therefore, the owner and the possessor are liable to compensate for damages, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 758 of the Civil Act.

Articles 758 and 760 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and four others

Defendant 1

Defendant 2

Daegu District Court of First Instance (75 Gohap538)

The original judgment shall be modified as follows:

The Defendants pay to each of the Plaintiffs 1,342,857 won and 3,528,571 won, 3,4,8571 won, and 1,242,857 won, respectively, to the Plaintiffs 3, 4, and 5 respectively, and Defendant 1, and Defendant 2, from June 21, 1975 to the full payment. Defendant 2, from August 20 of the same year, shall pay the amount at the rate of 5 percent per annum.

The plaintiffs' remaining claims and the plaintiff's appeal against defendant 2 are dismissed, respectively.

The litigation costs shall be divided into three parts through the first and second trials, and one shall be the plaintiff, and the other two shall be the defendants' expenses.

A provisional execution may be effected only under paragraph (2).

The Defendants jointly and severally pay 2,681,173 won to Plaintiff 1, and 6,843,519 won to Plaintiff 2,3,419, respectively, and 2,481,173 won to Plaintiff 3,4, and 5, and the amount at the rate of 5 percent per annum from the day after the delivery of the copy soar to the full payment.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants, and provisional execution declaration

(1) The purport of the plaintiffs' appeal

The part against the plaintiffs in the original judgment shall be revoked and same as the purport of the claim.

(2) Purport of Defendant 2’s appeal

The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

On April 5, 1975, the deceased non-party 1 had no dispute over the above-mentioned 10 marries, and the fact that the non-party 2 died by putting them into the marbing room 19, no dispute exists between the parties concerned, Gap evidence 1, 5 through 9, Eul evidence 11 through 17, and Eul evidence 1 through 7, and the fact that the non-party 2 had no dispute over the above marbing room and the above marbing room constructed by marging the above marging room to the non-party 1, and the non-party 2's testimony and the court below's on-site inspection that the non-party 1 had no dispute over the above marbing room, and the non-party 1 had no dispute over the above marbing room and the non-party 2's new marging room constructed by marging the front marging room.

Therefore, in the case where it can be deemed that the possessor has primary responsibility to the possessor and that the possessor has fulfilled due care for the prevention of damage, the damages caused by the defect in the installation and preservation of a structure stipulated in Article 758 of the Civil Code shall be interpreted as not excluding the competition between the possessor and the owner in the case where the possessor and the possessor are responsible for the part of the defect, such as the provision to delete the liability to the owner and to protect the victim, or in the case of this case where there is a defect that cannot be held liable to the possessor, but it is interpreted as not a provision excluding the competition between the possessor and the owner. Therefore, the defendants shall be liable to compensate the damages suffered by the plaintiffs

Furthermore, comprehensively taking account of the whole purport of the parties' arguments as to the amount of damages, Gap 1,2,3 and 4 without dispute, the deceased non-party 1 is the male of June 6, 1927 who is 47.9 years old at the time of this accident, and the average female of 47.9 years old (this fact is obvious to party members) is 21.98 years old, and the deceased is a public educational official who works as art teacher at the time of this accident for 109,60 won for 109,60 won monthly wage and 200 won, less than 20 won per month after deducting public charges of 105,320 won per month (title omitted), and it is evident that the plaintiffs would have received 105,320 won per month for living expenses of the deceased 】 30 years old and less than 200 won per month for 20 years, and there is no dispute between 10,500 won and 300 won per month for the above 20-19.7.4.

Therefore, according to the above evidence, the property damage suffered by the deceased due to the accident is 10,910,846 won of the above recognition. On the other hand, according to the above evidence, the above inn's house administered by the deceased, as the owner of the above inn's house, he temporarily reconstructed out the old building without permission, and heating it as a radist, so it should be examined only once as to whether the owner of the above inn's house was a radsium radsium rasium rasium rasium rasium rasium 10,846 won of the above recognition. Since the inn's house rasium 10,910,846 won of the above recognition, the above inn's house rasium 10,000 won of the deceased's 100 won of the damages can be considered as 80,000 won of the plaintiff's 200 won of the damages under the Civil Code.

However, Defendant 2’s legal representative, as the plaintiffs received the pension due to the death of the deceased, should deduct it from the above damages. However, even if the plaintiffs received the benefits under the Public Officials Pension Act as the deceased’s bereaved family members, the above assertion is without merit, since there is no reason to deduct it from the amount of damages for each of the above recognitions. Second, Defendant 2 did not have to receive the refund from Defendant 1 as property other than 3 million won of the above tenant’s lease deposit, and is running a dietary life with the same loan income. Thus, it is clear that if the above defendant compensates for the entire amount of damages recognized above, it would have a significant impact on the livelihood, and therefore, it would have been claimed that the compensation amount would be reduced pursuant to Article 765 of the Civil Act. However, the testimony by Nonparty 3 of the party witness alone cannot be accepted, and there is no ground to accept the above assertion.

Then, we can see that the deceased non-party 1 died due to an unforeseen accident as mentioned above, and that the deceased's wife and children suffered a considerable amount of mental pain. In addition, in addition to all all the circumstances after the accident occurred in the present argument, such as the circumstance of the accident, the deceased's negligence, and the plaintiffs' receipt of 200,000 won as funeral expenses of the deceased, it is reasonable to determine consolation money for the above mental pain of the plaintiffs as 20,000 won for the plaintiff 1 and 100,000 won for the remaining plaintiffs.

Therefore, the defendants are obligated to pay to each plaintiff 1 the amount of 1,342,857 won and 3,528,571 won, 3,42,857 won, and each of them to plaintiff 3,570 won, 3,4,857 won, and to each of them, from June 21, 1975 to the day following the delivery date of a copy for which the plaintiffs seek against each of them, and from August 20 to the full payment system, the defendant 2 is obligated to pay the amount at an annual rate of 5 percent of the Civil Code. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition and the remaining claims are without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in its conclusion, and it is modified in accordance with the plaintiff 2 and the plaintiff 2's appeal against the defendant 3,4,857 won, and Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act is dismissed by applying Article 9 and Article 99 of the same Act to the plaintiff's appeal against the defendant 2, and Article 99 of the same Act.

Judges Park Jae-sik (Presiding Judge)