The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Northern District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to Articles 2 and 20 of the former Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems Act (amended by Act No. 12207, Jan. 7, 2014; hereinafter referred to as “fire-fighting systems Act”), Articles 5 and 22 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24864, Nov. 20, 2013; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Fire-Fighting Systems Act”), Article 14 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems Act (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 1130, Jan. 9, 2015); Article 2 of the Framework Act on Fire-Fighting Services, etc., “related persons” shall appoint a person prescribed by Presidential Decree as fire safety controller to conduct fire safety control; thus, “interested persons” refers to an owner, manager, or occupant of a specific fire-fighting object prescribed by Presidential Decree.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do2682 Decided July 9, 2004. Meanwhile, a lessee of a building subject to fire-fighting falls under an interested person who is required to appoint a fire safety controller to perform the duties of maintaining and managing fire-fighting systems, etc. Meanwhile, in principle, a lessee who has leased part of a building is liable for fire safety control only for the occupied and used part, and exceptionally, in cases where performing fire safety control duties for the entire building including leased part through consultation with the owner of the building, etc. in consideration of the circumstances such as the structure and location of fire-fighting systems, the current status of occupation of the building, etc.