beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. “Defect in the construction or maintenance of a structure” under Article 758(1) of the Civil Act means that a structure is in a state of failing to meet normal safety requirements according to its use. In determining whether such safety requirements are met, the determination shall be based on whether the installer or keeper of the structure has fulfilled his/her duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the risk of the structure.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da61615, Feb. 11, 2010). Also, an accident resulting from a defect in the installation or preservation of a structure does not refer only to cases where only the defect in the installation or preservation of the structure causes the occurrence of the damage. As long as the defect in the installation or preservation of the structure becomes one of the common causes of the accident, the damage caused by an accident shall be deemed to have occurred due to the defect in the installation or preservation of the structure
(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da101343 Decided April 29, 2010, and Supreme Court Decision 2013Da61602 Decided February 12, 2015, etc.). Furthermore, as long as the existence of a defect is recognized as a group of defects, it is reasonable to interpret that the damage was caused by the defect in the installation or preservation of a structure, unless it is proved by the owner or possessor of the structure, unless it is proved by the owner or possessor of the structure that there was an inevitable defect in the occurrence of the damage, even if the existence of a group of defects is recognized as a group of defects, the existence of other natural facts concurrently exist in the occurrence of the damage. The owner and possessor of the structure cannot be exempt from liability for damage, regardless of the existence of such defect.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da66476 delivered on April 29, 2005, etc.). (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da66476 delivered on April 29, 2005).
September 21, 2010