Liability of indirect possessors of a structure for damages

In a case where damage was inflicted on another person due to a defect in the installation or preservation of a structure, and the possession of the structure is in the relation of agency ownership, the direct possessor shall be liable for the first liability, and he may be liable to the indirect possessor only if the direct possessor did not neglect his care necessary for the prevention of damage.

Article 758 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 73Da1077 Delivered on February 25, 1975, 75Da204 Delivered on September 14, 1976

Plaintiff 1 and 7 others

Defendant-Appellant Doz., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 80Na2635 delivered on December 19, 1980

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

1. We examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant's agent.

Based on its evidences, the court below held that the non-party 4, the victim non-party 1, was responsible for compensation for damages incurred by the defendant who occupies the above house, since since around 1970, the non-party 1 was entrusted with the general management of the above forest by the above non-party 1 to move into the above house as a manager of forest, and the non-party 2 was removed from the above house in around 1975 and then replaced the manager of the forest to the non-party 3 because he was left the above house due to the non-party 1's failure to move into the house, and the above house was destroyed due to the death of the above house as stated in its reasoning, and since this accident was caused by the preservation defect in the above forest, it was found that the non-party 4, the victim non-party 4, who occupied the above house.

However, in a case where the possession of a structure causes damage to another person due to a defect in the installation or preservation of a structure, if the possession of the structure belongs to an agency, the direct possessor shall be held liable for the damages only when the direct possessor is held liable for the first liability, and the direct possessor does not neglect due care necessary for the prevention of damage (see Supreme Court Decision 73Da1077 delivered on March 25, 1975, Supreme Court Decision 75Da204 delivered on September 14, 1976). The facts acknowledged by the court below are as follows: (a) whether the above forest, including the instant house, was directly owned by the defendant or directly occupied by the non-party 3 designated as the manager of the forest, and the defendant was indirectly occupied by the defendant; and (b) whether the above non-party 3 did not only conduct management as the assistant of the defendant, but also without examining the evidence of the court below, there is no evidence showing what the purpose of the original adjudication is in the form of possession.

Nevertheless, the court below did not clearly state this point and held that the defendant is liable to compensate for damages as possessor without any evidence, because it committed an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment by recognizing facts without evidence or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations. Therefore, this issue is justified.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the grounds of appeal on different points, the judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)