The purport of the Plaintiff’s claim is that, if Defendant A faithfully performed the duty of night guard, the occurrence of a fire would have been discovered, that is, the occurrence of a fire would not be considered as a claim for damages premised on the possibility of extinguishing the fire, and the lower court did not perform the duty to have a more concrete and detailed statement on this point.

The purport of the Plaintiff’s principal claim is that, if Defendant A performed his duty at night, the occurrence of a fire would have been discovered, that is, by finding a fire early, and thus, it cannot be seen as the purport of the claim for damages premised on the premise that it was possible to extinguish the fire. Therefore, the lower court should further examine whether the Defendant A, a security guard, engaged in the security duty without leaving the security area and found the fire accordingly, could have prevented or restricted the damage by taking fire-fighting measures if he had discovered the fire.

Article 390 of the Civil Act, Article 126 of the Civil Procedure Act

Korea Transportation Corporation

Defendant 1 and two others

Seoul High Court Decision 69Na153 delivered on May 20, 1970

We reverse the original judgment.

The case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The plaintiff's attorney's ground of appeal shall be examined.

Upon examining the original judgment, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that Defendant 1 was engaged in the duty of guard at night in the transport of the Plaintiff Company, which was set up at the front line of the front line of the front line of the front line of the front line of the front line of the front line of the front line of the front line of the front line of the front line of the front line of the front line of the front line of the front line of the front line of the front line of the front line of the front line of the front line of the front line of the front line of the front line of the front line. However, the court below did not find the Plaintiff’s duty of guard at night of the first line of the front line of the front line of the front line of the front line of the front line of the front line of the front line of the front line of the front line of the front line of the front line of the front line of the front line of the front line of the front line of the front line of the front line of the front line of the front line of the front line of the front line of the removal.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench to reverse the original judgment.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Nabri-dong and Dobri-Jaking Hanwon