(영문) 대구지방법원 2013.1.18.선고 2011가합2108 판결

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 165,495,427 won with 5% interest per annum from December 26, 2010 to January 18, 2013, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 2/5 shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 349,155,697 won with 5% interest per annum from December 26, 2010 to the sentencing day of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The location, etc. of the fraternity of this case and well-known

1) 피고는 1991. 8. 12. 자신 소유의 경북 칠곡군 석적읍 반계리 66 지상에 가설건축물 형태의 강파이프구조 축사 6동(이하 '이 사건 계사'라 한다)을 신축한 후 소유권보존등기를 마치지 않은 채 위 계사를 임대해 왔고, 2009. 2.경에는 당시 임차인 ■■의 요청에 따라 위 계사의 계약전력을 5W에서 10㎾로 높이는 전기시설 공사를 해주었다.

2) 이 사건 계사의 지붕은 보온덮개(부직포)로, 벽체는 천막으로 되어 있었으며, 위 계사에는 전등 약 30개, 환풍구와 환풍기 각 8개가 각 설치되어 있었고, 임차인 ■■가 별지 도면 기재와 같이 각 동에 등유 열풍기(전기 모터로 등유 순환) 1~2개씩 총 7대를 설치하였으며, 오는 2009. 10.경 피고로부터 위 계사를 임차하면서 전임차인 ■■■로부터 위 열풍기를 매수하였다.

3) The Defendant did not specifically mention the electrical facilities of the instant fraternity to ○○○○, and did not engage in the electric repair work while operating the instant fraternity by leasing it, nor did he arbitrarily operated the electric facilities. However, the Defendant only conducted a safety inspection on the electric facilities of the instant fraternity at least once a year at the Korea Electric Power Corporation.

4) The Plaintiff, as the owner of 3 Dog-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-

B. Occurrence of the instant fire

1) On December 26, 2010, around 12:35, a fire (hereinafter referred to as “the fire of this case”) occurred in the mooring company on the side of the logistics center (hereinafter referred to as “the instant mooring company”) among the instant mooring companies. Since the fire of this case (hereinafter referred to as “the instant mooring company”) was very winded toward the south of the north at the time, the fire was turned out to the instant towing company adjacent to the said mooring company, and accordingly, the rain, Korean rain, and vehicles owned by the Plaintiff were destroyed.

2) 는 이 사건 화재 발생 당시 계속되는 강추위로 인하여 이 사건 계사의 환풍기를 작동하지 않았고 환풍구도 닫아 두었으며, 전등을 켠 채 열풍기를 계속하여 가동하면서 위 계사에서 약 44,000마리의 닭(병아리)을 키우고 있었다.다. 물류센터 탐문수사 및 CCTV 확인 등

1) It was pointed out that the 20th AA’s 20th A was likely to have caused a fire on the instant fire site by the employees of the logistics center, and that the police officer of the Gldong Police Station visited and confirmed the logistics center immediately on the date of the fire. At the time of the fire, 15 employees of the logistics center were working at the logistics center, and among them, 00 and Dou Dou Dou was the Smoking. The ○○ was working at the office around 12:00, the time when the fire was presumed to have occurred, and the meals were returned to the office after Doudongdong Police Station.

2) In addition, the police officer of Lindong Police Station stated that the three CCTVs installed outside the logistics center were 1, and the CCTVs were 2:10 through 12:50 of the CCTVs No. 3, which appears to be part of the instant wells, except for the direction of the mooring and wells and wells, and that the contents of the CCTVs No. 12:10 through 12:50, which were found to be part of the instant wells, were confirmed on the date of the fire, and there was no person approaching the wall of the instant fire. 3) Otherwise, the Doldong Police Officer, who was the fire witness of the instant case, was found to have become fired at the end of the instant mooring, but as a result of on-site joint identification, it was not possible to find any inflammables at the point in which the said △△△△△△ was stated, but there was a trace of the fire in the electric wires in the instant case.

(i) A letter of request for appraisal of partial members of the National Scientific Investigative Research Institute (Evidence A6)

(1) Fire site inspection: The shape in which combustion has been expanded by both sides of the string and rains, etc. centering on the strings, and electric facilities, such as electric winders and powder powder, etc. inside the strings, are shapes concentrated around the entrance. Electric peculiar points, such as the fall, etc., at the time of inspection, do not distinguish electric wires inside the strings, and the fall is distinguishable from the exhaustr. Electric peculiar points are not distinguishable from the exhaustr near the strings of the entrance, but are distinguishable from the exhaustr connected to the wall, even though the strings of the entrance do not distinguish from the exhaustr around the entrance.

(2) Examination of Zinsium: At the time of inspection of electric facilities at both circles, it is distinguishable from the front line of the entrance in the vicinity of the entrance, the wall distribution line, and the fall line in the vicinity of the heat wind hole, and it can be seen that it was originated mainly around the lower part of the entrance.

(3) Results of appraisal: It is difficult to see that the main fire is unique in terms of specific source effects due to the shape or fire, loss, etc. of the facilities occurring in the electric facilities near the entrance of the dunes.

2) Although it is not possible to find specific characteristics of the origin of a facility due to the fire, loss, etc. of the facility under the investigation report by the libere Police Station (No. 19-2), there is no suspicion of a crime since there is no human factor as a type of an electric facility near the two-way entrance, which is generated from the electric facility near the two-way entrance.

4) Lering Fire Slock and Fire Site Survey Note (No. 4-1 of evidence No. 4), the key point of which is not distinctive, and electric facilities such as the heat wind code or internal distribution code are difficult to distinguish by heat change. It is difficult to readily conclude the specific cause of outbreak due to heat change, etc. on the line connected to the wall of the cable that was laid down on the floor. There is no dispute, and there is no ground for recognition. The evidence No. 2-6, evidence No. 19-1-42, evidence No. 1-2, No. 19-2, No. 3, evidence No. 4-1, No. 2-5, and No. 5-1, No. 4-2, and No. 5, the fact inquiry of the chief of the National Scientific Investigation Research Institute of this Court and the chief of Gllldong Police Station, the witness’s testimony in part, and the purport of the entire pleading, as a result of the witness’s testimony.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Defendant, as the owner or possessor of the instant fraternity and its electric facilities, neglected to check the electric facilities and manage them for the safe use by the lessee at all times, and the fire in this case occurred due to the defect of the subdivision team and its wall surface because the fire occurred due to the defect of the electric facilities, and as such, the Defendant is liable for damages due to the tort stipulated in Article 758(1) or 750 of the Civil Act.

B. Defendant’s assertion

1) The Korea Science Investigation Agency’s written response to the appraisal of the Korea Science Investigation Agency is not able to discuss specific peculiar points, which is called the fluority, and the fire of this case is likely to be caused by a cigaretteing near the fluor of the instant boat, and the fire of this case was installed fluor to prevent a fire that may be caused by a boat dressing. Thus, the defect of electric facilities in the instant boat cannot be said to exist in the instant boat.

2) The liability under Article 758 of the Civil Act is only applicable to the liability for damages caused by a fire that is directly caused by a defect in the installation and preservation of a structure, and it cannot be applied to the liability for damages caused by such a fire. Even if Article 758 of the Civil Act is applied, the direct occupant has neglected to pay due attention for the prevention of damage. Therefore, the Defendant, who is not the direct occupant, is not the owner, and is not the

3) The Defendant is not liable for tort pursuant to Article 750 of the Civil Act, since there is no negligence with respect to the instant fire, and even if there is a part of the Defendant’s negligence, the provisions regarding tort liability pursuant to Article 750 of the Civil Act regarding the instant fire ought to be excluded.

4) Even if the Defendant’s liability for damages is recognized, in calculating the amount of damages, the Defendant also suffers enormous property damage caused by the instant fire pursuant to the Act on Fire Liability, and the amount of damages should be reduced considerably by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the cause and scale of the instant fire, the cause for expanding the fire and the cause for expanding the damage.

3. Determination

A. Occurrence of damages liability

1) Determination as to whether Article 758(1) of the Civil Act applies

Unlike the former Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by Negligence (wholly amended by Act No. 9648 of May 8, 2009) (wholly amended by Act No. 9648 of May 8, 2009), Article 758(1) of the Civil Act applies in cases where there is a proximate causal relation between the installation and preservation defect of a structure and the damage therefrom, and Article 358(1) of the Civil Act applies only to the special provision on the reduction of the amount of damages, but does not limit the establishment of the liability for damages. Thus, unless otherwise provided in other Acts, the possessor or the owner of a structure is liable for damages on the fire caused by defects in the installation and preservation of a structure. Therefore, in cases where there is a proximate causal relation between the installation and preservation defect of a structure and the damage caused by the fire, the person liable for damages from the fire that was destroyed by gross negligence is entitled to the reduction of the amount of damages pursuant to Article 365 of the Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by Negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da2526128.

In light of the above facts, the Plaintiff’s loss incurred to the Plaintiff that the fire that occurred from the instant accident was moved to the instant accident owned by the Plaintiff is about the part that was burned from the said fire. However, Article 758(1) of the Civil Act shall also apply in cases where there is a proximate causal relation between the defect in the establishment and preservation of the instant accident and the damage. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion to the effect that Article 758(1) of the Civil Act cannot be applied to the damage caused by the fire of this case, regardless of whether there is a proximate causal relation.

2) Determination on the cause of the fire of this case and defects in the installation and preservation of structures

가) 살피건대, 위 인정사실에 의하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정 즉, ① 이 사건 계사는 1991년경 신축되어 약 20년이 지난 노후한 미등기의 가설 건축물로서 벽면과 천정이 연소되기 쉬운 자재로 되어 있는 점, ② 피고는 2009. 1.경 당시 임차인인 ■■■의 요청에 따라 이 사건 계사의 계약전력을 승압시키는 공사를 해주었고, ■■는 약 30개의 전등 외에도 7대의 열풍기를 설치하여 가동해왔던 점, ③ 오는 2009.10.경 ■■■로부터 위 열풍기를 그대로 인수하였고, 이 사건 화재 발생 무렵에는 계속되는 추운 날씨로 인하여 환풍구를 모두 닫은 채 약 30개의 전등을 켜고 7대의 열풍기를 지속적으로 가동하였던 점, ④ 이 사건 계사의 전기시설물에 대하여 연 1회 정도 한국전력공사의 안전검사를 받은 것 외에는 피고가 위 전기시설물의 안전과 관련된 다른 점검이나 구체적인 관리를 한 바는 없는 점, ⑤ 현장 합동감식 결과 이 사건 계사의 출입문 주변의 분전반과 벽면배선 및 열풍기 인근의 소락배선에서 단락이 수곳 식별되었던 점, ⑥ 이 사건 화재 목격자가 진술한 발화지점에서는 화재의 원인이 될 만한 것이 발견되지 않았고, 위 화재 당일 물류센터에서 확보한 3번 CCTV의 녹화 자료에도 위 화재 발생 무렵 이 사건 계사의 담장 쪽으로 접근하는 사람이 확인되지 않은 점, ⑦ 누전차단기가 정상적으로 작동할 경우 누전에 의한 화재는 예방할 수 있으나, 합선 또는 전선 단락에 의한 화재는 여전히 발생할 수 있는 점, ⑧ 단락흔은 합선 등으로 인하여 통상적인 경우보다 전기가 강하게 흘러서 발생하는 것인 점, ⑨ 이 사건 계사 출입문 근처 분전반과 벽면 배선에서 단락흔이 식별되는 외에 달리 발화와 관련지을 만한 전기적인 특이점이 없고, 이 사건 계사의 주변에 다른 화기취급시설도 없는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 이 사건 화재는 이 사건 계사 내의 분전반 등에서 단락으로 인한 발열 등 전기적 문제에 의하여 발생한 것으로 추정된다. 그러므로 이 사건 계사 내 전기시설물은 통상 갖추어야 할 안정성을 갖추지 못한 상태에 있었고, 이 사건 화재는 위 전기시설물의 위와 같은 설치·보존상의 하자로 인하여 발생한 것이다.

B) As to this, the Defendant asserted that the employees of the logistics center have a high possibility of the fire in this case by means of a cigarette smoke in which the employees of the distribution center smoked tobacco. As such, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it by itself, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit since the CCTV video data secured on the date of the fire in this case, it was confirmed that there was no person approaching the wall of this case at the time of the fire, and that there was no person having access to the wall of this case at the time of the fire in the field of the above fire, and that there was no fact that there was no evidence to prove that there was a fire in the above field joint appearance, etc., in the above field, the aforementioned argument by the Defendant is without merit.

3) The term “the possessor of the electric facilities, etc. of this case” under Article 758(1) of the Civil Act refers to a person who is in charge of and is responsible for repairing and managing structures in order to prevent various accidents that may arise from defects in the installation or preservation of the electric facilities, etc. in de facto controlling the structure (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da386, Apr. 21, 200).

살피건대, 위 인정사실에 의하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정 즉, 이 사건 계사의 분전반 등 전기시설은 피고가 이 사건 계사를 지을 때 설치한 것으로 건물구조의 일부를 이루고 있는 점, 피고는 2009.2. 당시 임차인 ■■■의 요청을 받아들여 위 계사의 계약전력을 높이는 승압공사를 해주었던 점, 피고가 에게 이 사건 계사를 임대하면서 위 전기시설물에 대해서는 언급한 내용이 없는 점, 오는 위 전기시설물에 대해서는 알지 못하였고, 위 전기시설물을 수리하거나 임의로 분전반 등을 조작한 적도 없는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 이 사건 계사의 분전반 등 전기시설을 설치한 피고가 임대인으로서 건물구조의 일부를 이루는 위 전기시설물을 지배·관리하여 왔다고 봄이 상당하므로, 위 전기시설물을 지배·관리하여 온 점유자는 임차인 가 아니라 소유자인 피고라고 할 것이다.

4) Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendant, as the owner and possessor of the electric facilities of the instant building, is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the defect in the installation and preservation of the said electric facilities pursuant to Article 758(1) of the Civil Act, as well as to compensate for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to negligence that caused the management of the said electric facilities owned and occupied by the Defendant. As such, the Defendant is also liable for tort liability under Article 750 of the Civil

B. Scope of liability for damages

1) Plaintiff’s damages

A) Criteria for calculation

In general, damages caused by illegal acts shall be deemed ordinary damages, in cases where the goods have been destroyed, the market price at the time of their destruction; where the goods have been damaged, the expenses incurred in repairing or restoring the goods to their original state, or where the repair or restoration to their original state is impossible or the expenses are excessive (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da44633, Apr. 28, 2006; 2000Da34426, Jan. 10, 2003).

B) The cited part

In full view of the contents of Gap 7 through 18, 20, 21 evidence (including each number), and the overall purport of the arguments as a result of each request for appraisal by this court for appraisal of the deceased and the deceased, the plaintiff suffered the following property damages due to the fire of this case.

(1) The letter company of this case: 48,949,840 won (the third letter company of this case is not entirely charged to the letter company of this case). Thus, the plaintiff's repair expenses (the evidence No. 12) are acknowledged within the scope of 5,051,000 won at the time of the front company of this case.

(2) Han Han-woo

① At the same time, the Plaintiff’s allegation that there was no reasonable causal relation between the fire and the fire of this case was made between KRW 37,470,150 [2,00 (2,072,00 (6-7 months or more) x 4 x 6,684,000 (2,228,000 (6-7 months or more) x 3 x 1 2,041,00 won (4-5 months or more) x 3 5 x 3 20,457,150 (4-5 months or less) x 3 5 x 3 x 3 x 3 x 3 x 15 x 5 x 10 x 5 x 10 x 5 x 15 x 5 x 10 x 5 x 10 x 5 x 1,201.21.21.21 of the Plaintiff’s allegation that the fire of this case was fire of this case.

② The Defendant asserts that there is no proximate causal relation between the damage of Korea-China and the fire of this case since the existence of actual damage of Korea-China immediately after the fire of this case and its damage are unclear as to the existence of damage and whether it was caused by the fire of this case. However, according to the evidence above, 114 Dus, including 10 Dus, were raised from the Korea-China at the time of the fire of this case. The fact that most of Korea-China were damaged by pictures, etc. due to the fire of this case, the fact that most of Korea-China were caused by the fire of this case, and the fact that the appraiser's permission calculated the amount of damage in consideration of average slaughter age and body weight. Thus, there is no reasonable causal relation between the damage of Korea-China and the fire of this case.

③ As to the four additional closed deaths and three additional abolished deaths: Total sum 43,784,120 won [=(2.4 6,819,050 won x 4 x 4 x 5,502,640 won x 3 x 3 x the average unit price of the above gender] x 4 x 4 x 4 x the Defendant’s negligence, not the death due to the instant fire, but the Plaintiff’s negligence. However, since there is no evidence to acknowledge this, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

In addition, the defendant asserts that the amount of damage should be calculated by the successful bid price based on the monthly order and body length of each single letter at the time of the actual death. However, according to the above evidence, 114 Dus including the four Dus of the above cancer at the time of the fire of this case were raised at the same time, the appraiser's lusium calculated the amount of damage based on the average of the above gender unit price. The fact that the monthly order at the time of the closure of the above cancer was 24,41,53,65 months, respectively. In the case of the average lusium, approximately 30.3 months, the number of females, about 32.1 months, and about 52.9 months, in the case of females, respectively, the plaintiff slaughtered one letter at the average lusium at the time of the death of this case. Since the 4 Dus of the above cancer was recognized as close to the gender in light of each average lusium age, it cannot be justified for the defendant's allegation that the above average damages are unreasonable.

④ In addition, 32 : 59,643,49 won (the difference between the unit price and the body weight of the margin shipped out of the average gender unit price in the above 19,643,49), the Defendant asserts that there is no proximate causal relation between the above 32 damage and the fire of this case, and that the damage amount caused by the average value is unfair. However, according to the evidence above, 114 Dus including the above 32 Dus were raised at the time of the fire of this case, it is acknowledged that the damage amount was calculated in consideration of the average gender unit price, the shipped unit price, and the body weight. In calculating the damage amount of Han Dobs shipped out of the same Dobs in the above 19,643,49 won (the average gender unit price in the above 200,000 won). Thus, the Defendant’s assertion that the above method of calculating the damage amount is unreasonable is without merit.

⑤ 54 remaining 54 video damage: Total amount of KRW 77,963,228 [the amount calculated by multiplying the average amount of gender damage by 38 du 70,990,892 + KRW 38 1,254,402 in case of video damage + KRW 13 5,717,934 in the completion of treatment, and KRW 13 5,717,934 in the completion of treatment, and KRW 13 5,717,934 in case of video damage, and the degree of damage) shall be determined to be traded at a price similar to 32 ever shipped. As such, the average amount of gender damage shall be calculated by multiplying the average amount of damage by the rate of damage (=the current

(6) The amount of damages of Han Han-ri: Total amount of 245,94,437 won (=total of 11du 37,470,150 won + KRW 10Du27,133,440 for the one that was shipped immediately after fire + KRW 43,784,120 for the one that was additionally discarded, + KRW 32Du59,643,499 for the additional cargo + KRW 38Du70,990,892 for the video damage + KRW 38Du 38,254,40 for the video damage + KRW 13Du5,717,934 for the completely cured treatment phase + KRW 13Du5,717,934 for the video damage).

(3) Other

(1) Gitter for the year 200: 2,500,000 won by transfer.

③ Feed (masting: 2,56,50 won (the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was destroyed by the fire of this case even after beer and beer and beer on December 25, 2010): according to the statement of evidence No. 14, the Plaintiff purchased beer and beer in the amount equivalent to KRW 1,140,000 on December 20, 2010; however, considering the purchase of beer and beer in the amount equivalent to KRW 1,142,50 on December 20, 2010 on December 25, 201, it is insufficient to view that the beer and beer were remaining at the time of the fire of this case, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise, the Plaintiff’s assertion in this part is without merit).

C) Rejection part

The plaintiff asserts that the fire of this case caused damage to the plaintiff, such as the delivery equipment, drugs, tools, tools, tools, and other goods, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

D) Total amount of damages: 300,900,777 won in total (i.e., KRW 48,949,840 in the instant case + KRW 245,994,437 in Korea-friendly damages + Other KRW 5,956,50 in the instant case)

2) Determination on the Defendant’s assertion of mitigation of damages under the Criminal Procedure Act

According to Article 3 (1) of the Fire Liability Act, in the event that the actual owner does not have gross negligence, the court may reduce the amount of damages by taking into account the circumstances under each subparagraph of Article 3 (2) of the Fire Liability Act. In this case, the gross negligence under the above Act refers to a situation in which the result of illegal and harmful harm can be easily predicted if he did not pay considerable attention to the extent required by the ordinary owner, but it means a situation in which the defendant lacks significant attention (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da21050, Oct. 27, 1992). Thus, in this case, the defendant can claim a reduction of the amount of damages to the court under Article 3 of the Fire Liability Act.

On the other hand, in full view of all the circumstances revealed in the arguments of this case, such as the cause and scale of the fire of this case, the target and degree of damage, the cause of the spread of burning and damage, and the efforts of the de factor to prevent the expansion of damage, etc., it is reasonable to reduce the liability for damages to be borne by the defendant to 55% of the damage suffered by the plaintiff, in full view of all the circumstances indicated in the arguments of this case, such as the following circumstances revealed by the above facts.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff 165,495,427 won (i.e., KRW 300,90,777 x 55% of the limitation of liability x less than won) and damages for delay at each rate of 20% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act from December 26, 2010, which is the date of the instant judgment, to January 18, 2013, which is the date of the instant judgment, where it is deemed reasonable for the defendant to resist the existence or scope of the obligation of this case.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges

The presiding judge and the judge in order;

Judges South-Name

The judge's defects.

Note tin

1) The Plaintiff’s average land on the successful bid price by grade in the wholesale market on the date of the instant fire on the basis of the appraisal document with respect to the eight persons in Song-do.

It argues that the amount of damages should be determined on the basis of the price of one credit calculated by means of multiplying it, but in general, illegal conduct

The damage caused by the above shall be calculated at the market price at the time of the loss, and according to the above evidence, the above 8th Epina shall be

It was 11 months old at the time of the dry fire, and even according to the livestock product price trend, the auction price of fabab and fabababa

The fact that the plaintiff is on an average; approximately 30.3 months' age in the case of rain, approximately 32.1 months' age in the case of female, and approximately 32.1 months' age in the case of female.

52.9 Monthly Order 52.9: Inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is recognized as having slaughtered Chinese rain, it is without merit.

2) The average level of 350km X 1 +B 19,483 won out of the Plaintiff’s Han parcels shipped prior to the occurrence of the instant fire.

3) Average grade 3A 12,506 Won x 3A 12,506 out of the average body weight of hydrogen 440km among the plaintiff's Han parcels shipped prior to the occurrence of the instant fire (a large rain)

In the case of the average body 430kmx 1 +B 17,647 won 7,587,780 won)

4) A lessee is deemed to have neglected the duty of care for the management, such as excessive heat, use, etc., within the instant fraternity, and thus, the lessee is deemed to have neglected the duty of care.

Damage jointly and severally with the defendant within the amount of money calculated by the final decision of compulsory mediation as joint tortfeasor under Article 750 of the Act.

The liability should be borne.

참조조문

참조판례