가. 공작물의 설치보존상 하자의 의미와 공작물의 설치보존자에게 부과되는 방호조치의무의 정도나. 대학 5층 건물 옥상에서 그 대학 학생이 후배들에게 몸통을 좌우로 뒹굴게 하는 방법으로 기합을 주던 중, 그중 1인이 약 15미터 아래로 떨어져 사망한 경우 위 옥상은 그 설치용도와 관계 있는 사람 이외에는 올라가지 않는 곳이라는 점 등을 이유로 위 건물의 설치보존상의 하자가 인정되지 않는다고 한사례

(a) Defect in the installation and preservation of a structure refers to a state in which a structure does not have safety ordinarily in accordance with its intended purpose. In the installation and preservation of a structure, it cannot be deemed that there is a defect in the installation and preservation of the structure because it did not meet the high level of safety to the extent that the complete state is always maintained. Thus, the degree of duty to take protective measures imposed on the installer and manager of the structure is that the degree of duty to take protective measures is generally required by social norms in proportion to the danger

나. 대학 5층 건물 옥상에서 그 대학 학생이 후배들에게 얼굴을 하늘로 향하게 하여 바닥에 눕게 한 다음, 구령에 맞추어 몸통을 좌우로 뒹굴게 하는 방법으로 기합을 주던 중, 그중 1인이 몸을 구르다가 약 15미터 아래로 떨어져 사망한 경우 위 옥상은 그 설치용도와 관계 있는 사람 이외에는 올라가지 않는 곳이고, 위 망인을 비롯한 학생들도 평소 그와 같은 사정을 잘 알고 있었다고 할 것이며, 나아가 위험성에 대한 지각능력이 있는 학생들이 출입이 제한되어 있는 그 옥상에서 추락 등의 사고를 일으킬 수 있는 행위를 하리라고 기대하기는 어려우므로, 학교측에게 그러한 사고가 있을 것까지 예상하여 항상 그 곳에 관리인을 두어서 출입을 통제한다거나 추락을 방지하기 위하여 난간을 설치하는 등의 조치를 취할 것까지 요구할 수는 없고 따라서 위 건물의 설치보존상의 하자가 인정되지 않는다고 한 사례.

Article 758 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2773 delivered on May 12, 1987 (Gong1987,971) (Gong1987,971) 87Meu827 delivered on October 24, 1988 (Gong1988,1461) (Gong1461 delivered on July 25, 1989)

Attorney Lee Dong-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee] Attorney Choi Tae-chul et al.

Daegu High Court Decision 90Na6065 delivered on September 12, 1991

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

As to the Plaintiffs’ grounds of appeal

원심이 인용한 제1심판결의 이 사건 사고발생에 관한 판시내용을 보면, 1989.6.29. 03:00경 피고가 운영하는 대구공업전문대학 공학관 5층 옥상 위에서 제1심 공동피고 가 위 대학의 후배들이자 교지 등을 발간하는 편집실 후배들인 소외 망 권재욱을 비롯하여 소외 김신한, 임기열 등에게 선배 말을 잘 듣지 않고 편집 및 교지발간이 형편없다는 이유로 위 소외인들에게 얼굴을 하늘로 향하게 하여 각 바닥에 눕게 한 다음, 구령에 맞추어 위 소외인들의 각 몸통을 좌우로 뒹굴게 하는 방법으로 기합을 주던 중, 위 망 권재욱이 우측으로 몸을 구르다가 위 옥상으로부터 약 15미터 아래 지면으로 떨어져 부상을 입고 그로 인하여 같은 날 12:50경 사망하였다는 것이다.

In addition, according to the court below's determination as to the crashed structure of the above deceased, the steel pipe pipe pipe pipe's bridge was installed on the fifth floor of the above fifth floor of the building of the above fifth floor, and the rooftop was not installed on the rooftop, and there was no rail, nor a device for controlling the safety signboard or the access to the bridge. However, the above bridge was built for the purpose of spreading the manager or technician of the building when inspecting the water tank installed on the rooftop, repairing the malfunction, and cleaning the above five floor, and there was only a teaching research room and a school site editing room, and there was only the general public's access to the above five floor, and only the related professors or minority students have access.

The defects in the installation and preservation of a structure refer to the state that the structure is not in a state of safety ordinarily required for its use, and it cannot be said that there is a defect in the installation and preservation of the structure on the ground that it does not always have a high level of safety to the extent that the complete state of maintenance is maintained at all times.

Therefore, the degree of duty to take protective measures imposed on a person who installs or preserves a structure refers to the degree of duty to be generally required by social norms in proportion to the risk of the structure (see Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2773, May 12, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 87Meu827, Oct. 24, 198; Supreme Court Decision 88Meu21357, Jul. 25, 1989).

In light of the above facts, the above rooftop part does not go up except those related to its installation purpose, and students, including the above deceased, were well aware of such circumstances. Furthermore, it is difficult to expect that university students, who have the ability to perceive danger, have engaged in any act that may cause an accident, such as fall, etc., on the rooftop where access is restricted, and it is difficult to expect that they have to do so. Thus, it is not possible to demand that the defendant take measures, such as installing a rail, etc., at all times, to have a manager assigned to the place to control access or prevent fall. Moreover, the rooftop part of the building of the above engineering museum cannot be said to fall under the rooftop square or street pole under Article 44(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act. Accordingly, it is not recognized that there is any defect in the construction and preservation of the building of this case.

Furthermore, the lower court’s determination that employees of Defendant Driving Schools did not have a duty of care as alleged by the Plaintiffs is also justifiable.

There is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principle in the judgment of the court below.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

All appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice) Park Young-dong Kim Jong-ho