In a case where a lessee dies due to a gap between the school kitchen and the wall in the degree of 1cm between each other, if there is any negligence of the lessee (negative)

It is reasonable to view that the lessee is not creshed toward the floor between the school kitchen and the wall, and that the creshes and the creshes about about 1cm with the inner wall and the creshes about 1cm with the above room belong to the lessee's ordinary repair and management duty of the lessee who resided in the room by leasing the above room. Even though the lessee died due to the crepit in the room, even though the creshes and died due to addiction to the smoke gas, it cannot be determined that the lessor was erroneous on the part of the lessor that caused the above accident.

Article 623 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 751, 577)

Plaintiff 1 and eight others

Defendant

Daegu District Court (84 Gohap882 decided) in the first instance

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant paid 28,835,546 won to the plaintiff 1, 18,890,364 won to the plaintiff 2, 1,440,00 won to the plaintiff 3, and 80,000 won to the plaintiff 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 respectively, 50,000 won to the plaintiff 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, and 25,000 won per annum from July 31, 1984 to the date of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the defendant in both the first and second trials and a declaration of provisional execution.

On December 9, 1983, the fact that the deceased non-party 1 was addicted to coal gas and died of being addicteded on May 2, 1984, while he was living by leasing one column among the houses (number omitted) of the Daegu Suwon-dong 4, which was owned by the defendant from the defendant on December 9, 1983, the fact that the deceased non-party 1 was addicted to coal gas is not disputed between the parties.

As the cause of the claim in this case, the plaintiffs suffered a crack in the floor of the above room, and the door between the above room and the kitchen is closed, and there is a gap in the wall and the cresh, and there is a gap in the smokestack's capacity, and the gas was not easily discharged or discharged due to the difference in the connecting part, and thus, there was a smoke gas in the smoke boiler installed in the kitchen and the kitchen, but the defendant left away without repairing it, and the above accident occurred. Thus, the defendant asserted that the owner or lessor of the above house in this case is liable for all damages suffered by the plaintiffs, who are the deceased and their families, due to the above defect.

Therefore, in full view of the statements in Gap evidence No. 7 without dispute over the establishment, the result of the court below's on-site inspection, the witness's testimony of non-party 2 and the whole purport of the pleading, it can be recognized that there is a little rupture on the front part of the floor corner of the above room, and there is a little gap on the connecting part of the chimney which leads from the kitchen to the outside of the fence.

However, for this reason, there is no evidence to believe that there was an accident with a crepans of the ruptureproof floor or chimney connecting part of the smokestack, or that the accident occurred due to the crepansation of the smokestack installation, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the testimony of Gap's No. 7, Gap's No. 3-1, and Gap's No. 9, or the testimony of non-party 3 and non-party 2 of the court below's trial witness, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

However, it is reasonable to view that this degree of defect belongs to the duty of ordinary repair and management of the above deceased who leased and resided in the above room, in light of the fact that the above room is likely to be the cause of the accident, as the defendant was the plaintiff, although there was a possibility that the above accident occurred due to the difference between the kitchen and the wall, it is possible for the above room to be the cause of the accident, but if the records of No. 6-2, No. 7, A, No. 12, and No. 1-2 are followed by the evidence No. 1-2 without dispute over the establishment, the above door and wall No. 1-2, and the wall No. 1-2, the above door and wall No. 1-2 can be recognized. Furthermore, it cannot be concluded that there was any error that caused the accident in the defendant's side because the plaintiffs who had repaired the smoke boiler facilities of the above deceased's own after the lease.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case based on the premise that the above accident occurred due to defects as alleged, or that the defendant was negligent as a lessor, are without merit to examine the remaining points, and therefore, they shall be dismissed. Since the original judgment is justified with this conclusion, the appeal shall be dismissed without merit, and the costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiffs who have lost them. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jeon Soo-dae (Presiding Judge)