[1] In the case of a claim for damages caused by a fire, the relationship between Article 758 (1) of the Civil Code and the application of the Liability for Fire Caused by Fire Act

[2] The case holding that, in a case where an unclaimed fire occurs on the petroleum delivery vehicle parked on a slope, and an auxiliary locking device was removed and a nearby building was removed and destroyed, the building constitutes a fire directly caused by a defect in the installation and maintenance of the vehicle, which is a structure

[1] Article 758(1) of the Civil Code recognizes a kind of strict liability, and Article 758(1) of the Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by a fire is limited to cases where the liability of the fire is caused by gross negligence in consideration of the fact that the occurrence of a fire is caused by burning nearby houses and other things, and the liability of the firer is excessive. As such, Article 758(1) of the Civil Code only applies to the liability for damages caused by a fire directly caused by a defect in the installation and preservation of a structure itself, and it is reasonable to interpret that Article 758(1) of the Civil Code applies to the liability for damages caused by a defect in the installation and preservation of a structure. Here, the fire directly caused by a defect in the installation and preservation of a structure does not necessarily refer only to the fire itself.

[2] The case holding that, in a case where an unclaimed fire occurs in a petroleum delivery vehicle parked on a slope, and an auxiliary locking device was removed and a nearby building was removed and destroyed, the building constitutes a fire directly caused by a defect in the installation and maintenance of a structure

[1] Article 758 (1) of the Civil Code, the Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by Negligence / [2] Article 758 (1) of the Civil Code, the Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by Negligence

[1] Supreme Court Decision 82Da1038 delivered on December 13, 1983 (Gong1984, 159), Supreme Court Decision 93Da20405 delivered on December 10, 1993 (Gong1994, 346), Supreme Court Decision 93Da56404 delivered on March 22, 1994 (Gong1994, 1316), Supreme Court Decision 95Da2287 delivered on February 23, 1996 (Gong196, 1058)

Defendant (Law Firm Han-U.S. Law Office, Attorneys Yu-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 96Na24882 delivered on June 25, 1997

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff is a person who runs a visual miscellaneous truck of 796-19 of the Seocheon-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Shimbro (hereinafter referred to as the " Schlage") with the trade name "Ocheon Petroleum" in which the plaintiff was engaged in the petroleum retail business, and the defendant was employed by the co-defendant of the first instance court who operated the 70-5322 Simbro truck (hereinafter referred to as the "the truck of this case") to remove petroleum from the above 5-hour truck on November 22, 1994, and the defendant was responsible for parking lots of this case on the 10-day residential premises of this case to prevent the plaintiff from spreading of the above 1stmburging truck of this case, and thus, the defendant was a driver who delivers petroleum using the 1stmburging truck of this case to the extent of 7-8 square meters away from his dwelling and to the 1stmburging truck of this case.

2. Article 758(1) of the Civil Act recognizes strict liability, and Article 758(1) of the Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by fire, once a fire occurs due to fire, is limited to cases where the responsibility of the fire is caused by gross negligence in consideration of the fact that the fire has been burned nearby houses and other things and the expected damage has increased, and the responsibility of the firer is excessive. As such, Article 758(1) of the Civil Act is only applicable to the liability for damages caused by a fire directly due to a defect in the installation and preservation of a structure, and there is no application of the Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by Fire, and it is reasonable to interpret that the Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by Fire shall apply to the liability for damages caused by a fire (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 82Da1038, Dec. 13, 1983; 93Da56404, Mar. 22, 1994; 95Da287, Feb. 23, 196).

The lower court’s determination that the instant fire was directly caused by the defect in the installation and preservation of the instant truck itself, which is a structure, is justifiable in accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the defect in the installation and preservation of a structure and the responsibility for fire-fighting. The grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant who is the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)