In a case where rubber dust attached to a refrigeration machine is generated through the heat of the refrigeration machine, it is whether it is a serious fault as prescribed by the law on the responsibility for Realization or not to remove rubber dust accumulated in the refrigeration machine or to operate the refrigeration machine for long time.

The term "major negligence" as referred to in the Act on Fire Fighting Responsibility refers to a situation in which, without due care, if a little attention is required for ordinary people, it can easily be seen as unlawful or harmful results, and it lacks significant attention similar to almost such intention. Thus, as long as the rubber dust's emission point is recognized as 32° or 350°C, even if the rubber dust is attached, it can be too excessive to the degree that the rubber dust is generated by it can not be easily predicted as an ordinary person. Therefore, even if the rubber dust is not removed from the rubber dust by the emulculation or there is a negligence in the operation of the emulculation during the time of the emulculation, it is difficult to view the above negligence as a gross negligence.

Supplementary to the Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by Negligence

Seoul High Court Decision 81Da428 decided Feb. 8, 1983; 81Da428 decided Feb. 8, 198

Plaintiff

Defendant

Daegu District Court (83Gahap38)

(1) The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked.

(2) The plaintiff's claim against the above cancellation portion is dismissed.

(3) The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

(4) All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff by the first and second instances.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 8,260,00 and the amount at the rate of 25 percent per annum from the day after the day when the notice of this case is served to the day of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

The part against the plaintiff in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 6,049,40 and the amount at the rate of 25 percent per annum from the day from the day following the delivery of the instant gushes to the day of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in both the first and second instances, and provisional execution shall be declared.

Judgment like the Disposition

(1)In full view of the facts indicated in Gap evidence 2 (C) and Gap evidence 4-1 through 4 (each photograph), testimony of the witness Hudle, part of the criminal records and arguments conducted by the court of original judgment, without dispute, the defendant shall install and operate 3-meter high-speed rubber 5-meter high-rises and 17-20 buildings adjacent to the 1st 20-dong house 1889, where the plaintiff resides in Daegu-gu (detailed omitted) and 17-777, and then remove the above 1-meter high-speed rubber 10-meter high-speeds and 1-meter high-speeds of the above 19-meter high-rises and 1-meter high-speeds 5-meter high-speeds of the above 1-meter high-speed rubber 5-meter high-speeds of the above 1-meter high-speed 1-meter high-meter high-techs of the above 1-meter high-techs.

(2) Accordingly, the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to KRW 500,00,000, total amount of KRW 8,260,000, and KRW 8,000,00 from the above fire caused by the above fire, but the above fire was caused by the Defendant’s gross negligence, and thus, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant is liable for compensating for the above damages suffered by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant argued that the above Defendant’s negligence did not constitute gross negligence, first of all, we examine whether the above Defendant’s negligence constituted gross negligence.

The term "major negligence" as referred to in the Act on the Actual Liability for Fire Caused by Negligence refers to a situation in which, without due care to the extent required by the total person, it can easily be found unlawful or harmful, if it could have been predicted that the result is harmful (see Supreme Court Decision 81Da428, Feb. 8, 1983; Supreme Court Decision 81Da428, Feb. 8, 198) and it lacks significant attention to almost the same intention (see Supreme Court Decision 143, Feb. 8, 1983). According to the record inspection result (Records 143) from the front of this case, as long as the rubber dust is recognized to be 320 to 350°C, even if the rubber dust is attached, it is difficult to see that it is difficult for the above defendant's assertion that it is considerably unreasonable for the above gross negligence, and therefore, it is difficult to conclude that the above defendant's gross negligence is a gross negligence.

(3) Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case based on the premise that there is gross negligence on the part of the defendant shall be dismissed without examining it, and since the original judgment is unfair in some conclusion and the defendant's appeal has merit, it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 89 and 96 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs, since the part against the defendant in the original judgment is revoked and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as per Disposition, and the plaintiff's appeal is without merit.

Judges Kim So-ho (Presiding Judge)