beta
Text
The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.
Of the appeal cost, the part between the plaintiffs and the defendant is the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the addition of the following “2. additional determination” as to the allegations emphasized or added by the plaintiffs in this court, and therefore, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. The Plaintiffs asserted that the instant fire occurred in the instant housing leased and resided by the Defendant, and was burned to the instant church at the time of field inspection. At the time of field inspection, the division of electric code lines and pressureing phenomenon was confirmed at the bottom of the cooling house installed in the small bank inside the instant housing.
Therefore, it is clear that the fire of this case was caused by the defect in the installation or preservation of the house of this case and the air conditioners owned and managed by the defendant, and the defendant is the possessor of the house of this case who is a structure, and is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the fire of this case.
B. Determination of the defect in the installation or maintenance of a structure under Article 758(1) of the Civil Act means that the structure itself lacks ordinary safety, and the burden of proof of the existence of the defect lies on the victim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 82Da348, Aug. 24, 1982; 2017Da218208, Aug. 18, 2017). Determination of whether the installer or custodian of the structure satisfies the duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required under the social norms in proportion to the risk of the structure ought to be made on the basis of whether the installer or custodian of the structure in question fulfilled the duty to protect the building in question (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da27022, Oct. 10, 1997). According to the above legal doctrine, the owner of the housing in this case has to be equipped with the housing in the situation of possession and the interior of the structure in this case (i.e., the structure in question).