[1] Whether a fire safety controller is obligated to maintain and manage escape facilities installed in an object of fire safety (affirmative), and whether the same applies to cases where Article 11 of the former Special Act on the Safety Control of Publicly Used Establishments, etc. provides that the owner of a publicly-used establishment bears the duty of maintenance and management of escape facilities (affirmative) / Whether a fire safety controller bears the duty of maintenance and management of outdoor escape stairs installed under Article 36 subparag. 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act (affirmative); and whether the aforementioned duty includes the duty to prevent the act of making it unusable by actually closing and blocking the passage or emergency exit directly connected to outdoor escape stairs inside the building (affirmative)

[2] In a case where a fire officer neglects his/her duty under the former Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems Act and the former Special Act on the Safety Control of Public-Use Establishments, the degree of violation of duty required to meet the element of illegality under Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act / Whether a fire officer’s failure to exercise his/her administrative power at his/her discretion is unlawful as it violates his/her duty, in a case where there is no social feasibility because it considerably lacks rationality (affirmative)

[3] Whether a proximate causal relationship between a violation of an official duty and a victim's loss should be acknowledged in order to recognize the State's liability for damages due to a public official's breach of an official duty (affirmative), and the standard for

[4] The case holding that in case where the bereaved family members Gap et al. who died of a fire from the main office filed a claim for damages against Eul Metropolitan City, there is a proximate causal relation between fire officers' violation of their official duties and the death of Gap et al.

[1] In light of the contents and purport of Articles 20(6)3 and 10(1) of the former Act on the Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems (amended by Act No. 12207, Jan. 7, 2014; hereinafter “Fire-Fighting Systems Act”), Articles 11 and 14 of the former Special Act on the Safety Control of Publicly Used Establishments (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “Public Used Establishments Act”), fire safety managers or fire safety managers (title prior to the amendment of the Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems Act is referred to as “fire safety managers”; hereinafter “fire safety managers”) are obligated to maintain and manage outdoor escape stairs installed under Article 49 of the Building Act (hereinafter “Evacuation facilities”) or outdoor escape stairs installed under Article 10(1)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Fire-Fighting Systems Act as well as to maintain and manage such outdoor escape facilities installed under Article 20(1)4).

[2] Articles 4(1) and 5 of the former Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems Act (amended by Act No. 11037, Aug. 4, 201; hereinafter “former Fire-Fighting System Act”); Article 9(2) of the former Special Act on the Safety Control of Public-Use Establishments (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “Public-Use Facility Act”) aims not only to promote public safety and interests as a whole, but also to ensure the safety and interests of individual citizens. Thus, if a fire officer neglects his/her duty under the former Fire-Fighting System Act and the Public-Use Facility Act, if it is deemed that the violation of his/her duty has lost objective justification, it satisfies the requirements of illegality as prescribed under Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act. In addition, even if the exercise of administrative authority of a fire officer is entrusted to a fire officer’s discretion in the form of a relevant Act, if it is obviously unreasonable in light of the purpose and purpose of the fire officer’s exercise of authority.

[3] In order to recognize the State’s liability for breach of the public official’s official duty, there should be a proximate causal relationship between the violation of the public official’s official duty and the victim’s loss. In determining whether such proximate causal relationship is acknowledged, a comprehensive consideration should be given to the probability of the occurrence of the general outcome, as well as the purpose of the code of conduct including the statute imposing official

[4] In a case where the bereaved family members of Gap et al. who died from a fire at the main place filed a claim for damages against Eul Metropolitan City, the case holding that since fire officers failed to find out that one of the emergency exits was closed and that there was a situation that could cause confusion and trouble in escape in the event of a fire, and that they did not properly guide and supervise the owners, such as a corrective order, administrative guidance, and fire safety education, etc., in light of the fact that specific methods of fire safety inspection, etc. leave fire officers’ discretion, it constitutes a case where social feasibility is considerably inappropriate, and that the failure to find out the fact that one of the other emergency exits and its passage was actually closed, and that there was a substantial causal relation between Gap and Eul, etc., if they neglected overall inspection of the escape passage installed at the main place, the illegality can be recognized in the extension of the duty violation line, and that there was no reasonable causal relation between Gap and Eul, etc., as a result of the fire officers’ failure to properly guide and supervise fire officers at the time of their death, etc., and it did not have been found that Gap’s and the way of death.

[1] Article 10(1) of the former Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems Act (Amended by Act No. 1207, Jan. 7, 2014; see current Article 10(1)); Article 20(6)3 (see current Article 20(6)3 of the Act on Fire Prevention and Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems); Articles 11 and 14 of the former Special Act on the Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Establishments (Amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; see current Article 10(1) of the Fire-Fighting Systems Act (Amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013); Article 20(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Fire-Fighting Systems Act (Amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 24, 2014; see current Article 36(1) and (4) of the Fire-Fighting Systems Act)

[3] Supreme Court Decision 2005Da48994 Decided April 10, 2008 (Gong2008Sang, 653)

See Attached List of Plaintiffs (Attorney Choi Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Busan Metropolitan City (Law Firm Barun, Attorneys Park Il-hwan et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant 2 and six others (Law Firm LLC et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 2013Na51759 decided August 21, 2014

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal between the plaintiffs and the defendants 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are assessed against the plaintiffs, and the costs of appeal between the plaintiffs and the defendant Busan Metropolitan City are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal against the defendants 2 and 3

A. As to the ground of appeal on the second and third emergency districts, etc.

(1) After compiling the adopted evidence, the lower court determined as follows: ① the second emergency exit, portable emergency illumination, video sound breaker, etc. of the main points of the instant case were established at will in accordance with the recommendation of a person in charge of Busan Fire-Fighting, without any legal obligation to install it, and determined to the effect that, under Article 9(1) of the former Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems Act (amended by Act No. 12207, Jan. 7, 2014; hereinafter “Fire-Fighting System Act”), the “fire-fighting system, etc. established in the instant building” is not “fire-fighting system, etc.” established in the instant building, but the “the former Special Act on the Safety Control of Publicly Used Establishments” (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “Public Used Establishments Act”) the owner or manager of the instant building, who was the owner of the instant fire-fighting system, was not obligated to manage the facilities.

(2) Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the details and records of the relevant statutes, the lower court’s determination that Nonparty 1 is not obligated to maintain and manage the portable emergency lighting, video sound circuit breaker, and third emergency exit installed at the main points of this case is justifiable and acceptable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the relationship between the Fire-Fighting System Act and the Publicly Used Establishments Act,

(3) However, the part of the judgment below that Nonparty 1 is not obligated to maintain and manage the headquarters 2 emergency districts of this case is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

Article 20(6)3 of the Fire-Fighting Systems Act provides for “maintenance and management of escape facilities pursuant to Article 10 of the Fire-Fighting Systems Act” as duties of fire safety managers of objects subject to fire safety control or persons related to fire safety control. Article 10(1) of the Fire-Fighting Systems Act provides for “The persons related to a specific fire-fighting object shall: ① shut down or damage escape facilities under Article 49 of the Building Act (hereinafter referred to as “evacive facilities”); ② Piling up things or obstacles around escape facilities; ③ interfere with the fire-fighting activities under Article 16 of the Framework Act on Fire-Fighting Services; and ④ Other acts that alter escape facilities.” Article 49(1) of the former Building Act provides for “the person related to a specific fire-fighting object shall install and manage escape facilities on the ground level prescribed by Presidential Decree,” and Article 36(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Fire-Fighting Systems Act provides for “the total floor area of a fire-fighting facility installed for at least 10 stories prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs and Fisheries.”

In light of such provisions and purport of the Fire-Fighting Facility Act and the Public Use Establishments Act, fire safety managers are obligated to maintain and manage the relevant objects of fire safety control or escape facilities installed in the objects of fire safety control pursuant to Article 10(1) of the Fire-Fighting Facility Act. This also applies even if Article 11 of the Public Use Establishments Act provides that the owner of a publicly used establishment bears the duty of maintenance and management of escape facilities installed in the relevant place of business. Therefore, fire safety managers are obligated to maintain and manage outdoor escape stairs installed in accordance with Article 36 subparag. 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act among escape facilities, and such duty includes not only the act of closing or damaging outdoor escape stairs but also the duty to prevent acts that interfere with their intended use. Thus, the duty to prevent the use of outdoor escape stairs by actually closing or blocking the passage or emergency exit directly connected to outdoor escape stairs inside the building shall also be included.

According to the records, outdoor escape stairs connected to the second emergency exit of the main point of this case are installed as escape facilities pursuant to Article 49(1) of the former Building Act and Article 36 subparag. 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act at the time of changing the purpose of use of the third floor of the building of this case for opening the main point of this case as amusement facilities. Therefore, Nonparty 1, the fire safety controller of the building of this case, bears the duty of maintaining and managing such outdoor escape stairs pursuant to Article 20(6)3 of the Fire-Fighting Facilities Act, and the duty of maintaining and managing such outdoor escape stairs includes the duty of actually closing and blocking the passage directly connected to it or the second emergency exit. Nevertheless, the court below held that Nonparty 1 does not bear the duty of maintaining and managing the third floor of this case solely on the ground that the second emergency exit of this case constitutes “safety facilities, etc. installed in accordance with the laws and regulations of the publicly-used Establishments, etc., such judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on fire safety controller’s duties under the Fire-Fighting Facilities Act.

(4) However, the lower court’s conclusion that Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 are not liable for damages against the Plaintiffs is justifiable inasmuch as it is difficult to view that there was a proximate causal relation between Nonparty 1’s negligence in the maintenance and management of Nonparty 1’s second emergency exit and the deceased’s death for the following reasons. Therefore, the lower court’s above error did not affect the conclusion of the judgment.

The record reveals the following circumstances. ① Around June 201, the owners and employees of the instant main station installed a door on the passage connected to the second emergency exit from the main station of this case to the second emergency exit, etc. At that time, the passage connected to the second emergency exit from the main office of this case to the main office of this case became difficult for people to pass through the second emergency exit from the main office of this case. ② However, at that time, the passage connected to the second emergency exit from the main office of this case to the main office of this case was located immediately adjacent to the main entrance of this case. ③ At the time of the fire, the survivors of this case were evacuated through the main entrance of this case, without approaching the entrance of the main office of this case to the main office of this case, all the deceased were unable to reach the second emergency exit from the main office of this case to the main office of this case, which was installed before the death of the main office of this case.

In light of these circumstances, the circumstance that the passage connected to the second emergency exit as above at the time of the fire in this case and the second emergency exit was actually closed is deemed to have caused a realistic obstacle to the escape of the deceased. Thus, even if Nonparty 1 performed the maintenance and management thereof, it would be said that the deceased could not prevent the death. Therefore, there is a proximate causal relation between Nonparty 1’s mistake in not preventing the closure or blocking of the passage connected to the outdoor escape stairs or the second emergency exit connected to the outdoor escape stairs and the death of the deceased.

(5) Ultimately, this part of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

B. As to the ground of appeal on fire training and education

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below is just and acceptable to determine that the non-party 1 violated his duty of care as a fire safety controller with respect to fire drill or fire safety education, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the grounds of appeal against Defendant Busan Metropolitan City, Defendant 4, Defendant 5, Defendant 6, and Defendant 7 by Plaintiffs 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 16

A. As to the ground of appeal on limitation of liability

The fact-finding or the ratio of comparative negligence or limitation of liability in a claim for damages caused by tort falls under the exclusive authority of a fact-finding court unless it is deemed considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da91197, Jan. 27, 2012, etc.).

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the fact-finding or the determination of the ratio of comparative negligence shall not be deemed considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity. Therefore, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to

B. As to the ground of appeal on lost income

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the measure of calculating the lost income of the deceased non-party 2 is justifiable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation of lost income as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

C. As to the ground of appeal on consolation money

The amount of consolation money for mental suffering caused by a tort may be determined at the discretion of the fact-finding court in consideration of various circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da43165, Nov. 26, 2002, etc.).

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles and records, the court below is justified in determining the deceased's amount of consolation money as KRW 50 million each, taking into account the deceased's age, family relations, background of death, and other various circumstances shown in the pleading. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the calculation of consolation money as

3. As to Defendant Busan Metropolitan City’s grounds of appeal

A. As to the first ground for appeal

The main text of Article 4(1) of the former Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems Act (amended by Act No. 11037, Aug. 4, 201; hereinafter “former Fire-Fighting Systems Act”) provides that “the Administrator of the National Emergency Management Agency, the head of a fire headquarters, or the head of a fire station may order relevant public officials to make necessary reports or to submit data in the fire-fighting objects or areas within his/her jurisdiction; 2. Inspection of the location, structure, equipment, or management of the fire-fighting object; 3. Inspection of the location, structure, equipment, or management of the fire-fighting object; 4. The head of a fire headquarters or the head of a fire station may order public officials to take necessary measures for the safety and improvement of the fire-fighting object or the removal of the fire-fighting facility in compliance with the standards prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Public Administration and Security, as a result of the fire-fighting inspection of the fire-fighting object prescribed by Presidential Decree, if necessary for fire-fighting or damage to human life or property occurs.”

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the following circumstances can be revealed. ① The main points of this case were located in the 20th main office of the Busan Metropolitan City as well as the 24 main office of public use, which is anticipated to be simultaneously used by many people. On the other hand, there are no windows, and the corridors connected to the main office or the emergency exit inside the 20th office are difficult for users to grasp the overall internal structure of the 3 main office of this case. ② On June 2009, the main office of this case was installed 3 main offices of this case, and the main office of this case was located 5 main office of the 3 main office of the 3 main office of the 1st office of the 2nd office of the 2nd office of the 3th office of the 2nd office of the 3th office of the 5th office of the 3th office of the 1st office of the 3rd office of the 1st office of the 3rd office of the 3rd office of the 2nd office of the 3rd office of the 2nd office of the 3th office of the .

We examine these circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier. The main office of this case is a publicly used establishment located in a large city with which users of the internal structure can promptly evacuate in the event of a fire, and it is also important not only to maintain normal conditions where emergency exit and escape routes, etc. do not interfere with prompt evacuation, but also to maintain normal functions such as escape exit guidance, etc. that lead the users to evacuate to an emergency exit in the event of a fire. Even if an emergency exit is installed without legal obligations, such as the third emergency exit located in the main office of this case, it is not consistent with the main office of this case, and thus, it would result in confusion and interference with prompt evacuation, and thus, it would be deemed unlawful in light of the fact that the fire officers’ authority to inspect the fire-fighting passage installed in the place of business to ensure that the emergency exit and escape guide, etc. can not be seen as being unlawful in light of the fact that the fire officers’ authority to inspect the emergency exit installed in the place of business, such as emergency exit and escape guide, and thus, it is also deemed unlawful in light of the three-year duty of fire officers’s.

In the same purport, the court below determined to the effect that the fire officers belonging to Busan Fire Station violated their official duties by neglecting to check the emergency exit and escape facilities, etc. at the main office of this case, which are publicly used establishments that are likely to cause damage to human lives in the event of fire, and thus failing to discover the fact that the second emergency exit and the third emergency exit attached to each room have been actually closed and take necessary measures, and that the illegality thereof is recognized. Although there is no inappropriate part in the reasoning of the court below, the conclusion that the fire officers' above violation of their official duties and its illegality are recognized is just and acceptable, contrary to what is alleged in the ground of appeal, there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles as to the "unlawful due to the violation of their official duties" under Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

B. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

In order to recognize the State’s liability for breach of official duty of a public official, there should be a proximate causal relationship between the violation of official duty of the public official and the damage suffered by the victim. In determining whether such proximate causal relationship is acknowledged, a comprehensive consideration should be given to the purpose of the code of conduct, including statutes imposing official duty, as well as to the probability of the occurrence of a general result, the form of harmful act, degree of damage, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da

We examine the reasoning of the judgment below in light of such legal principles and records.

As seen earlier, the circumstance that the second emergency district was virtually closed at the time of the instant fire is difficult to be deemed to have a practical obstacle to the evacuation of the deceased. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below, as stated in the reasoning of the judgment, is inappropriate as if it was a direct cause for the death of the deceased.

However, according to the records, the following circumstances are revealed. ① At the time of the instant fire, Nonparty 3, the employees’ point of view, 24 times from the moment of the instant fire, was rapidly spreading through the corridor in the place of business. However, the automatic fire detection equipment installed at the main point of this case was not operated, and the emergency warning was not sounding. ② At 25 times located immediately adjacent to the 3 emergency exit located at the main entrance, there were 12 customers, but these were attempted to evacuates through the corridor, which was so long as the employees’ employees’ right to evacuate late, and eight of them did not find the shortest way of escape from the main entrance to the main entrance, and the employees were not able to take a shelter from the main entrance to the main entrance, and the employees were not able to take a shelter from the main entrance to the main entrance, and the employees were not able to take a shelter from the main entrance to the least 9 out of the main entrance to the main entrance, and the employees were not able to take a shelter from the main entrance.

In light of the specific situation at the time of the instant fire and the deceased’s death, if the fire officers were to perform their duties, such as fire inspection on the main points of the instant case, whether they could have prevented the deceased’s death. First, if the fire officers discovered that they would have caused confusion and trouble in evacuation due to the closure of the main points of the instant fire inspection at the time of the fire inspection, they would have been able to take measures to re-open the third emergency exit through the administrative guidance for the instant owners, and thus, they would have been able to escape more easily through the third emergency exit than the third emergency exit. Even if the third emergency exit was not re-open, if the fire officers were to perform their duties on the part of the deceased, at least 3 emergency exit and the emergency exit located adjacent to the fire officers who were not in compliance with the legal standards, the emergency exit and the emergency exit were not immediately and immediately announced to the employees of the instant fire officers, as well as the third emergency exit and supervision of the fire officers who were in compliance with the Act.

In the same purport, the lower court determined that there was a proximate causal relation between the violation of official duties and the deceased’s death, by neglecting to check the emergency exit and escape facilities, etc. of the main points of this case, which are publicly-used establishments that are likely to cause human life damage in the event of a fire, and thus failing to discover that there was any serious escape obstacle factors prior to the escape passage, etc. of the main points of this case, and thus failing to properly guide and supervise the main points of this case, and thus, that there was a violation of the duty to guide and supervise the owners of this case. The lower

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal between the plaintiffs and the defendants 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are assessed against the plaintiffs. The costs of appeal between the plaintiffs and the defendant Busan Metropolitan City are assessed against each party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

[Separate] List of Plaintiffs: Omitted

Justices Jo Hee-de (Presiding Justice)