In a case where a fire occurred on the second floor used as a lodging place for workers of a construction company and the causes of a fire are unknown, whether the company is liable to compensate workers for damages due to the violation of the duty to protect safety (affirmative)

In a case where a fire occurs on the second floor used as a lodging place for workers of a construction company and the cause of which is unknown, and an employee suffers an injury, he/she is faced with an accident from among those locked in a building which was provided for the purpose of facilitating the receipt of labor by the employer in order to conclude an employment contract with the employer and provide labor, and his/her control over the building is conducted by the employer, and the employee is based on all safety problems in the area of the employer's control. Thus, the employer under a labor contract bears the duty to protect the worker from being damaged within the facility for performing his/her duties and to consider its safety. Thus, even though the cause of the fire was not revealed, it is evident that the fire occurred regardless of the victim, and it was generated in a building which is the space under the control of the employer. Thus, the employer is liable for damages suffered by the employee as a result of failure to perform the duty of protection under a labor contract, and unless the employer claims and proves that there was no negligence on the part of the employer.

Articles 2 and 390 of the Civil Act, Article 23(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act

Plaintiff 1 and three others (Attorneys Kim Jin-jin et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

DF Housing Development Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Lee Jong-ok et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 96Gahap18930 delivered on January 9, 1998

1. Of the part concerning the claim for damages by plaintiffs 1 of the judgment below, the part against the above plaintiff, which ordered payment, shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount of 282,874,492 won with 5% per annum from April 28, 1998 to February 12, 1999, and an amount of 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. All appeals filed by Plaintiffs 2, 3, and 4 and the remaining appeals filed by Plaintiffs 1 are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of appeal, the portion arising between the plaintiff 1 and the defendant is five minutes for both the plaintiff 1 and the second instance, and the remainder is borne by the above plaintiff 2 and the defendant, respectively, and the costs of appeal between the plaintiff 2, 3 and 4 are borne by the above plaintiffs.

4. The portion of payment of the amount under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount of KRW 509,941,218, and KRW 10,000,000 for the plaintiff 3 and 4, and an amount of KRW 7,000 for each of these items, from April 14, 1996 to the service date of the complaint of this case, 5% per annum, and 25% per annum from the next day to the full payment date (as for the plaintiff 1's claim for retirement allowance, all of the above plaintiff's claim was accepted, but excluded from the scope of the trial for each party because the defendant did not file an appeal).

The part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiffs shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of 470,076,781 won and 10,000,000 won and 7,000,000 won for each of them to the plaintiff 3 and 4, and the amount of 5% per annum for each of them from April 14, 1996 to the date of the final judgment of the court below, and the amount of 25% per annum for each of them shall be paid from the next day to the date of full payment.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Occurrence, etc. of the instant fire

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or there is no dispute between Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 6-1 through 27, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 6-1 through 27, Eul evidence 1, witness Kim Young-soo in the original trial, and defendant's testimony (excluding the part which is not trusted after the testimony of the above Kim Young-soo), and contrary to this, some testimony of the witness Kim Young-soo in the original trial is not trusted, and there is no other counter-proof.

(1) On March 191, the Defendant constructed a temporary building on the construction site of Seongdong-gu Seoul, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, for the convenience of its employees, within the 250 large-scale drainage area (hereinafter “instant provisional building”) and provided it as an accommodation for employees or workers belonging to the Defendant Company.

(2) On September 1, 1981, the plaintiff 1 entered into a labor contract with the defendant company and worked as the director of the civil engineering division. The director of the construction division at the above construction site is working far away from the above construction site, and the house is difficult to leave and leave from the house. The building of this case was used as a lodging house. At around 01:30 on April 13, 1996, the plaintiff 1 discovered the fire from the room located on the second floor of the building of this case and tried to open a visit and escape to the corridor. However, the plaintiff 1 got out of the house through the counter-door window of the plaintiff 12 scarcity.

(3) The building of this case is a steel structure consisting of the 13th floor area and the 2nd floor area. At the first floor, 6 rooms were installed on the 2nd floor, and 6th floor, but the wall inside the 2nd floor and the wall, ceiling, and corridor were installed on the 2nd floor, and the strawer material (the outer part is the steel board, inside part is the composite, and the stude, which is a thermal material) was installed on the 2nd floor, and there was a situation where the 2nd floor can be easily burned if a fire occurs.

(4) In addition, six rooms on the second floor of the building of this case are installed between the corridors, and each room is installed with a corridor to enter the outside, and the outside stairs installed on the outer wall of the building of this case should be used. This was the only way to escape from the second floor of this case to the outside.

(5) However, the Defendant only provided one fire extinguisher at the first floor and the second floor of the building of this case, and did not install other necessary measures for fire prevention of the building of this case, or alarm equipment or escape equipment, etc. to prevent or reduce human life damage in the event of a fire. There was no room for the Defendant to conduct education on how to evacuate workers using the building of this case as accommodation or training for evacuation.

B. Judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion

(1) Whether a defect in the installation or preservation of a structure is liable

The Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendant, the owner of the instant building, despite the duty of care to thoroughly preserve and manage the instant building, because the interior of the instant building consists of inflammable substances, and the power lines are complicated, and electric power lines are frequent due to the frequent power failure or bad power failure, the Defendant, as the owner of the instant building, asserts that the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for the damages incurred to the Plaintiffs due to the instant fire, since the instant fire occurred due to the electric power failure, even though there was a duty of care to thoroughly preserve and manage the instant building, such as checking the safety of the electric power lines, installing necessary electric equipment, and installing the necessary alarm and fire extinguishers when a fire occurs.

Therefore, as alleged by the plaintiffs, whether the fire in this case occurred due to the defect in the construction and preservation of the building in this case, Gap evidence Nos. 6-1 through 27, Eul evidence No. 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, and testimony of the witness Kim Young-soo, and Go Young-gu witness of the court below alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no evidence to recognize that the fire in this case is a short circuit, and there is no other reason to prove that the fire in this case occurred due to any act or cause other than that of the building in this case owned by the defendant, and it cannot be said that there was a defect in the construction and preservation of the building in this case (the fire in this case was kept in place as seen above). Thus, the remaining arguments by the plaintiffs on the premise that the fire in this case occurred due to the defect in the construction and preservation of the building in this case owned by the defendant cannot be further examined without any further reason.

(2) Whether the employer is liable

In light of the fact that a portable burner was left unattended in the second floor of the building of this case before the occurrence of the fire of this case, the fire of this case was caused by the fire of this case, or by the worker of the defendant living in the building of this case, because the fire of this case was caused by the negligence of the worker of this case, or by the worker of this case, because the worker of the above worker of this case was treated with tobacco, match, etc. in a lodging place. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for damages caused by the fire of this case as the worker of this case as the worker of this case.

However, even according to the statement in the evidence No. 1, as shown by the plaintiffs' assertion that the fire of this case is consistent with the fire of this case, it is presumed that the possibility of the fire of this case is likely to occur due to such reason, and there is no other evidence to prove the same, it is difficult for the plaintiffs to accept the above assertion.

(3) Non-performance liability - Violation of obligation for safety consideration

However, according to the above facts, in order to conclude an employment contract with the defendant and provide labor, it is evident that the plaintiff 1 was divingd in the building of this case, which was provided by the defendant for the purpose of easily receiving labor service, and the control over the building of this case is carried out by the defendant, who is the employer, and the employee is intended to control all safety issues in the area of the employer's control. Thus, under the employment contract between the above plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant, who is the employer under the employment contract between the above plaintiff and the defendant, bears the duty to protect the above plaintiff, who is the employee, and to take into account its safety so that it does not suffer from a disaster within the facility for performing his/her duties. The employer is liable for damages if the worker suffered damages due to the violation of the above obligation, and the debtor, the employer, who is the employer, is not exempt from its liability unless he/she asserts and proves that there is no negligence on

However, with respect to the instant fire accident, even though the cause of the said fire was not revealed, according to the above recognized facts, at least the said fire occurred regardless of the said Plaintiff as the victim, and it is clear that it occurred from the instant building, which is the space controlled by the Defendant. As a result, the Defendant did not perform the duty of protection under a labor contract against the said Plaintiff. As to this, there is no assertion or proof as to the fact that the Defendant did not violate such duty, such as protecting the Plaintiff’s life and body and taking into account the safety of the said building, by taking necessary measures for the prevention of fire and the occurrence of the fire. Therefore, the Defendant is liable for damages due to nonperformance to the said Plaintiff.

B. Whether to limit liability

(1) Meanwhile, according to the evidence revealed above, at the time when the plaintiff 1 first knew of the occurrence of the fire of this case, the corridor and the entrance side of the second floor of the household building of this case was in a state of not felbing on flames, so the plaintiff 1 suffered the injury of this case on the wind, despite that it was possible for him to escape out of the felbro, even though he was in a situation where he could escape out through the feld window.

The above mistake of the plaintiff was caused by the occurrence and expansion of damages caused by the above accident, but it is not sufficient to exempt the defendant from liability. However, in calculating the amount of damages that the defendant is liable, it is reasonable to 30% in light of the above facts. Thus, the defendant's responsibility is limited to 70% in remainder.

(2) The defendant alleged that the plaintiff 1 was negligent in neglecting the duty of care to thoroughly supervise the safety conditions of the users of the building of this case in order to verify all safety matters prior to being taken and prevent disasters such as fire, as the chief of the construction site of the pertinent subway construction site. However, there is no evidence to prove that the fire of this case was caused by the negligence of the workers who were divingd in the building of this case. Thus, the defendant's above assertion premised on this premise is without merit.

2. Scope of damages.

A. The plaintiff 1's actual income

The damage caused by the above accident is KRW 291,367,786, calculated at the present price at the time of the accident in accordance with the Method of Calculation of Fractional Interest, which deducts the interim interest at the rate of 5/12 percent per month based on the facts of recognition and evaluation as follows:

(1) Facts and evaluation of recognition

(A) Gender, age, and life expectancy;

The above plaintiff is a male who was born on August 19, 1953 and left 42 years of age and 7 years of age at the time of the above accident, and the average male life in our country is 29.79 years.

(B) Occupation, income status and maximum working age

At the time of the accident of this case, the above plaintiff was working as the director of the civil engineering division belonging to the defendant company, and was receiving the income of KRW 77,733.49 as average wage, and the above plaintiff's retirement age at the defendant company is the last day of the year when he reaches 58 years of age.

In addition, the above plaintiff may engage in daily work for urban workers until he reaches 60 years of age, and the wages of ordinary workers who engage in urban daily work around May 1998 are KRW 34,098 per day.

(c)financial assessment of operating capacity;

① Until the retirement age of Defendant Company

The amount equivalent to the above average wage of KRW 2,364,393 ( KRW 77,733.49 x 365/12 x less than KRW 365/12 hereinafter the same shall apply) monthly gold based on KRW 77,73.49.

(2) The maximum working age thereafter

Amounting to KRW 790,504 (35,932 won x 22 days) per month on the basis of an urban daily labor wage in the first half of 1998.

(d)The ratio of residual disability and operational capacity loss;

(1) The rear disability: The lower half of the both sides, the upper half of the body, and the upper half of the body.

(2) Grade III-D of the Mabrid Cormeral Evaluation Table: two parts, brain, and scale items III-D.

(3) The ratio of loss from operation capacity: 100%.

(2) mountain.

(A) After the instant accident, 166 months from October 4, 1997, which was after the date of receiving temporary layoff benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, as sought by the Plaintiff, to August 31, 201, the retirement age of which is 166 months (monthly period).

gold 281,46,327 won =2,364,393 】 (136.369-17.321)

(B) for 24 months thereafter until the date on which he/she reaches age 60.

Gold 9,901,459 won = 750,156 won 】 (149.561-136.3659)

(c) Partnership: 291,367,786 won (281,46,327 won + 9,901,459 won);

[Certificate] Evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, 9, 10-1 through 4, 12-1, 2, 13-1 through 3, 18-1, 2, 19-1 and 2, 18-2, 19-1, and 2 of the evidence Nos. 18-1, 18-2, 19-1 and 2 of the evidence Nos. 18-1, 19-2 of the court below's testimony of witnesses and 19-2, the result of the physical examination entrusted to the chief of the Ethical hospital affiliated with the university of Ethician University at the court below

(b) aggressive damage;

(1) Expenses for future treatment;

(A) Salinary luminous treatment costs (which shall be calculated at annual costs as sought by the above plaintiff and shall be deemed to have been treated on a yearly basis)

(1) Details of medical treatment and expenses (annual aggregate of medical expenses): 1,838,680 won.

Sheet test expenses: gold 257,400 won

(B) Inspection expenses for scopic scopic scopic scopics: 49,400 won

Rabal error tests, urines, and luminous photography costs: 349,380 won

Cyeral brutitis treatment costs of 800,000 won

Ma Dozine urines: 200,000 won

㉳ 약물(디트로판) 치료비：금 182,500원

(2) The treatment period: Up to the life of woman.

(3) The calculation (in the absence of any assertion and proof that the above medical expenses have been spent by the closing date of the pleadings in the trial, it shall be deemed that the expenses have been disbursed after the lapse of three years from the date of the accident in order to apply the numerical value of the party concerned).

gold 1,838,680 won 】 (17.6293-2.7310) = gold 27,393,206 won

(b) water treatment costs and working treatment costs;

(1) Monthly medical expenses: 573,833 won (gold 6,886,00 won: 12 months)

(2) The treatment period: From August 27, 1997, which is the physical examination date, for two years.

(3) Calculation (which means that the above medical expenses are disbursed for the remaining period from December 13, 1998, which was 32 months from the date of the above physical examination to the date of the conclusion of the oral argument at the trial at the court, since there is no assertion or proof that the medical expenses were spent during the above period, since some part of the expected medical treatment period has expired from the date of the above physical examination at the court

gold 573,833 won 】 (36.9248-29.9804) = gold 3,984,925 won

[Identification] The result of the commission of physical examination to the head of the medical school of the medical school of the school of the school of the school of the school of the school of the school of the school of the court below

(2) Assistants

(a) the necessary number of non-uses of the necessary auxiliary equipment;

(1) Wheel chairss 850,000 won 5 years.

(2) Ten years of 22,00 won for a person who has suffered a special change in his/her name.

(3) Permanent 450,000 won for special beds.

(4) Permanent letters of 300,000 won for the purpose of correcting attitudes.

(5) Permanent ethyl et al. 500,000 won, each of which is ethyl et al.

6. Three years in total, 500,000

(7) Ten years for a public bath and a bath knife 550,000 won.

(8) Three years, including life jackets of assistive devices 351,000 won.

(B) The present price (in the absence of assertion and proof that it was disbursed not later than the closing date of the pleadings at the trial, it shall be deemed to have been disbursed from the closing date of the pleadings at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident

[850,000 won + [0.8695 + 0.7142 + 60.60 + 0.520 + 630.50 + 0.461 + 0.4166) + [572,00 won + 0.8695 + 0.60.60 + 0.4651] £« 851,000 won + 8695 + 692 + 690 + 6892 + 690 + 680.680 + 6890 + 680.50 + 6250 + 70.50 + 450.4250 + 450.695] £« [1,250,866,341 won]

[Evidence] Results of the above physical appraisal commission, the whole purport of the argument

(c) Nursing expenses;

(1) Domestic use: An applicant needs to be opened for the urology, distribution process, bathing, mobility, etc., which is part of the basic daily life of the above plaintiff.

(2) The opening period: From the date of the accident to January 13, 2026, the plaintiff sought as the remainder of the life-sustaining period.

(c) Opening costs: the amount equivalent to the daily wage of a man-made city, which is equivalent to 34,098 won per day around May 1, 1998, nearest to the closing date of pleadings in the trial of the political party.

(4) The present family court did not assert and prove that a part of the above opening period had been spent by the date of the closure of the pleadings at the trial, and therefore, since there is no assertion and evidence that the opening costs had been spent during the above period, the above opening costs have been disbursed from December 13, 1998, which was 32 months after the date of the time of the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the court

Gold 34,098 won ¡¿ 365/12 】 (218.40-29.9804) = gold 195,427,214

[Evidence] The result of Gap evidence No. 18-1 and 2, and the result of the commission of physical examination to the head of the relevant university affiliated with the university of Egymanian University, the whole purport of the argument

D. Limitation on liability

(1) The defendant's liability ratio: 70%

(b) Accounting:

528,039,472 won (291,367,736 won from daily income + 31,378,130 + purchase cost of an auxiliary Gu + 9,86,341 + 195,427,214) x 70/100 = 369,627,630 won.

(e) Public offering;

(1) A disability compensation annuity received under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, which is equivalent to the lump-sum disability compensation benefits, 101,753,138 won; and

[Evidence] Evidence No. 14-1, 2, Gap No. 17-1, 2-2, and all purport of oral argument

(2) mountain.

gold KRW 369,627,630-gold KRW 101,753,138 = gold 267,874,492

(f) consolation money;

(1) The consolation money of Plaintiff 1

(A) Reasons for taking into account: The above plaintiff's age, family relation, property, and educational degree, circumstances revealed in the arguments of this case, including the circumstances and result of the accident, and the degree of negligence of both parties.

(b) Amount determined: 15,000,000 won;

(2) Determination on the claim for consolation money by Plaintiffs 2, 3, and 4

The plaintiffs 2, 3, and 4 are the wife and children of the plaintiff 1, and they each claim for consolation money of KRW 10,000,000 and KRW 7,00,000 for each of the above plaintiffs 1 as compensation money for mental suffering from the accident of this case. Thus, as seen earlier, the defendant cannot be held liable for tort of this case. Thus, the above plaintiffs' claim for consolation money under the premise of tort liability cannot be accepted, and since the above plaintiffs 1 and the defendant cannot be deemed to have acquired the above plaintiffs' claim for consolation money under the non-performance of their labor contract between the plaintiff 1 and the defendant, the above plaintiffs' claim for consolation money of the above plaintiffs cannot be seen as one mother or without merit.

(g)the initial date of the damages for delay;

Plaintiff 1 claimed for the payment of the damages for delay calculated from April 14, 1996, the day following the date of the instant accident. However, the damages for nonperformance is an obligation with no fixed deadline, and the obligor, pursuant to Article 387(2) of the Civil Act, shall be immediately omitted when the obligor receives a peremptory notice of performance from the obligee. However, in this case, the above Plaintiff claimed damages for nonperformance only from the preparatory document dated April 21, 1998, and the fact that the above preparatory document was served on the Defendant on April 27, 1998 is apparent in the record. Therefore, there is no ground for the part before the above delay occurred among the Plaintiff’s claims for damages for delay.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1 for delay damages at the rate of 282,874,492 won (gold 267,874,492 won + 15,000,000 won) and the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from April 28, 1998 to February 12, 1999, which is the date of the ruling of the court below that it is reasonable for the defendant to dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation to pay from April 28, 1998, and 25% per annum under the Special Act on the Promotion of Legal Proceedings, etc. from the next day to the date of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff 1's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of the above recognition, and all claims of the plaintiff 2, 3, and 4 are dismissed. The part of the judgment below against the plaintiff 2, 3, and 4 shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The remaining part of the plaintiff 1's appeal shall be dismissed.

Judge Cho Yong-ok (Presiding Judge)