[1] Details of official duties where the State or a local government is liable for damages due to a public official’s breach of official duties and the standard for determining proximate causal relation

[2] In a case where a female employee who had been forced to leap with an entertainment drinking club by being detained in an entertainment drinking house died without being faced with a fire in the entertainment drinking house, and has died of the toxic gas, the case holding that a proximate causal relationship between the violation of duties by a public official in charge of a local government on duty and the result of the death is not recognized in a case where a public official in charge of a local government neglected

[3] The elements for a fire-fighting officer's violation of his duty to meet the illegality requirement of Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, and for a fire-fighting officer's failure to exercise his authority to leave the discretion to his discretion to be an unlawful violation of his duty

[4] In a case where a female employee who had been forced to leap with an entertainment drinking club and had been forced to leap with an entertainment drinking club died without being faced with a fire in the entertainment drinking club, the case affirming a proximate causal relationship between a fire officer’s breach of duty and a fire officer’s breach of duty not requiring corrective measures under the former Fire Services Act against the said entertainment drinking club and the result of the said death

[1] If the content of official duties imposed on a public official is not merely for the public interest or for the purpose of regulating the internal order of an administrative agency, but entirely or incidentally for the protection of the safety and interest of an individual of social members, the State shall be liable to compensate for the damage suffered by the victim due to the public official’s breach of such official duties to the extent that proximate causal relation is acknowledged. In determining the existence of proximate causal relation, the State shall comprehensively consider not only the probability of the occurrence of a general result, but also the purpose of Acts and subordinate statutes and other rules of conduct imposing official duties, or the form and degree of

[2] In a case where a female employee who had been forced to leap with an entertainment drinking club without being detained in an entertainment drinking house died without being frightened when a fire occurred in an entertainment drinking club, the case holding that there is no proximate causal relation between a public official in charge of local government’s violation of official duties and the death of the said employee, where he neglected to take measures under the Food Sanitation Act, such as changing the purpose of use of the said entertainment drinking club, issuing a corrective order for remodeling in violation of the business without permission and facility standards

[3] The former Fire Services Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Framework Act on Fire Services, Act No. 6893 of May 29, 2003) was enacted for the purpose of preventing, alerting, and extinguishing fire, and protecting people's lives, bodies, and property through rescue and emergency medical services in times of disasters, disasters, and other emergency situations, thereby contributing to the maintenance of public safety and order and promoting the welfare. The provisions of the Fire Services Act merely aim at promoting the safety of the general public as a whole, and further, ensuring the safety of people's lives and goods. Thus, in cases where a fire officer neglected to perform his/her duties under the Fire Services Act, if the violation of his/her duties is deemed to have lost objective legitimacy when a public official of the general public who is faithful to his/her duties is deemed to have lost his/her duties, it shall meet the requirements of illegality under Article 2 of the State Compensation Act. Even if the exercise of administrative authority is entrusted to a fire officer's discretion in the form of the relevant Act, if the fire officer clearly violates his/her duties, in light of the purpose and purpose of the Act.

[4] The case holding that in a case where female employees who were detained in entertainment tavern and forced to leap with drinking and died from drinking gases because they were not frightened at the time of a fire in entertainment tavern, the case holding that the fire officer's violation of duty to take corrective measures such as taking corrective measures against the fire-fighting inspection, etc. conducted before a fire occurred and removing locking devices that obstruct evacuation at the time of a fire is considerably unreasonable, and that there is a proximate causal relation between such duty violation and the result of the death

[1] Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act, Article 750 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act, Article 750 of the Civil Act / [3] Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act, Article 1 (see current Article 1), Article 4 (see current Article 12 of the Framework Act on Fire Services), Article 5 (see current Article 4 of the Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems Act), Article 6 (see current Article 5 of the Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems Act), Article 11 (see current Article 12 of the Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems Act), Article 30-2 (see current Article 10 of the Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems Act) of the State Compensation Act / [4] Article 2 (1) of the Civil Act, Article 750 of the Civil Act, Article 2 (1) of the former Fire-Fighting Systems Act, Article 41 (see current Article 25 of the Fire-Fighting Maintenance and Safety Control Act) of the Fire-Fighting Systems Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 91Da43466 delivered on February 12, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 958), Supreme Court Decision 97Da36613 delivered on May 8, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 1578) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 97Da5482 delivered on May 8, 1998 (Gong2004Ha, 1698), Supreme Court Decision 99Da64278 delivered on March 9, 2001 (Gong2001Sang, 835) (Gong2003Da4909 delivered on September 23, 2004)

Plaintiff 1 et al. (Law Firm Young-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff 3 and 8 others (Law Firm Young-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff 12 (Law Firm Shin-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff 13 and one other (Law Firm Young, Attorneys Lee Jong-hee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff 15 (Attorney Yellow-il, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff 16 and seven others (Law Firm Young-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

1. The term "non-indicted 1" means "non-indicted 1" means "non-indicted 1 or 1" means

Seoul High Court Decision 2004Na39179 delivered on July 20, 2005

1. Of the judgment of the court below, the part against the defendant Jeollabuk-do among the part against the plaintiffs except the plaintiffs 1, 2, and 2's lawsuit acceptance as well as the plaintiff 15, is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. 2. The remaining plaintiffs' appeals against the defendant Republic of Korea and Gunsan and the appeal against the defendant Republic of Korea are all dismissed. 3. The costs of appeal against the remaining plaintiffs' appeal against the defendant Republic of Korea and Gunsan are assessed against the above plaintiffs, and the costs of appeal against the defendant Republic of Korea are assessed against

Each ground of appeal is examined.

1. As to Defendant Republic of Korea’s ground of appeal

The defendant Republic of Korea asserted as the ground of appeal that the police officer of this case was in a situation or was aware of the situation that the female employees who died from the fire of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") were forced to leap with their visitors being detained inside the entertainment tavern of this case and forced to lele with their lives, and thus cannot be viewed as a legitimate ground of appeal. In addition, even if the reasoning of the judgment below is examined in light of the records, it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of police officers' duties, as alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. As to each of the grounds of appeal by the plaintiffs except the plaintiffs 1, 2, and the plaintiff 2's litigant and the plaintiff 2's non-party 15 (this case's appellant-Appellee is applicable only to this case's appellant-Appellee; hereinafter for convenience, "the plaintiffs of this case's appellant") against the defendant Republic of Korea and the military

A. If the contents of official duties imposed on a public official are not merely for the public interest or for the purpose of protecting the safety and interests of individuals from the society members entirely or incidentally, but rather for the internal order of an administrative agency, the State shall be liable to compensate for the damage suffered by the victim due to the public official’s breach of such official duties to the extent that proximate causal relation is acknowledged. In determining the existence of proximate causal relation, the State shall comprehensively take into account not only the probability of the occurrence of a general result, but also the purpose of Acts and subordinate statutes and other rules of conduct imposing official duties, the form of the harmful act, and the degree of damage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da43466, Feb. 12, 1993; 97Da3613, May 8, 1998). The same applies to local governments and their public officials.

B. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles, the court below is just in holding that there is no proximate causal relation between the police officer's violation of duties of this case and the deceased's death in light of the legislative purpose of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, the Criminal Procedure Act, the Act on the Regulation of Amusement Businesses Affecting Public Morals, the occurrence of the fire of this case, and the circumstances leading to the death of the deceased, and there is no illegality

C. Meanwhile, the purport of setting facility standards for food service business under the Food Sanitation Act, imposing an order to repair facilities, suspend business, etc., and prohibiting unauthorized use in the Building Act, and ordering necessary measures, such as removal, reconstruction, etc. of a building in violation of the Building Act, shall be deemed to have been established in order to protect the safety and interests of individual members of society, and the decision of the court below is erroneous.

However, examining the purpose of the Food Sanitation Act and other circumstances cited in the judgment of the court below in light of the aforementioned legal principles, in this case, after the occurrence of the fire in this case, toxic gas occurred due to indoor plants, etc. which are highly inflammable in the first floor of the entertainment bars of this case after the occurrence of the fire in this case, and the deceased did not suffer from the first floor or the second floor, and they reached a quality death, the judgment of the court below which held that the public official in charge of defendant Gunsan-si neglected to take measures under the Food Sanitation Act, such as changing the purpose of use of the entertainment bars of this case, issuing corrective orders against the violation of the duty duty duty and the death of the deceased, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the determination of proximate causal relation as a requirement for the occurrence of liability of local government under the State Compensation Act, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. As to the ground of appeal by the plaintiffs of this case-Appellant against defendant Jeollabuk-do

A. The former Fire Services Act (amended by Act No. 6893, May 29, 2003; hereinafter the same applies) was enacted with the purpose of preventing, alerting, and extinguishing fire, and protecting the lives, bodies, and property of citizens through rescue and emergency medical services in a disaster, disaster, or other emergency situations, thereby contributing to the maintenance of public safety and order and promoting welfare. It is reasonable to deem that the provisions of the Fire Services Act merely aim at promoting the safety of the general public as a whole, and furthermore, it is for the purpose of ensuring the safety of human life and goods of individual citizens. Thus, if a fire officer neglects his/her duty under the Fire Services Act, if it is recognized that the violation of such duty would have lost objective legitimacy in light of the standards for general public officials faithful to his/her duty, it is reasonable to deem that the fire officer satisfied the requirements of illegality under Article 2 of the State Compensation Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da64278, Mar. 9, 2001).

In addition, even if the exercise of the administrative authority of the fire officer is entrusted to the discretion of the fire officer in the form of the relevant law, in light of the purport and purpose of granting such authority to the fire officer, if the fire officer's failure to exercise such authority under specific circumstances considerably lacks rationality and thus is not socially reasonable, it shall be deemed unlawful as it violates the fire officer's duty (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da54482 delivered on May 8, 199, etc.).

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the above 10th floor and the 2nd floor of the above 10th floor of the entertainment tavern was installed in the 1965 apartment bars and the 2nd floor of the above 1st floor and the 2nd floor of the 1976 apartment bars, which were located in the 1st floor, and were located in the 2nd floor of the above 1st floor, and were located in the 1st floor of the above 2nd floor and the 3nd floor of the above 1st floor, and were installed in the 2nd floor of the above 1st floor, and were installed in the 2nd floor of the above 1st floor and the 2nd floor of the above 1st floor, and were installed in the 1st floor of the 2nd floor of the above 2nd floor, and the 1st floor area of the 1st floor and the 2nd floor of the fire-fighting bar, which was actually located in the 2nd floor of the above 4th floor.

C. Meanwhile, according to Article 11(1) of the former Fire Services Act, the head of a fire station, etc. may order persons related to special areas to take necessary measures, such as removal of flame retardant articles or performance tests if the area of an entertainment tavern subject to flame retardant under Article 11(2) of the former Fire Services Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1758, Mar. 30, 200; Presidential Decree No. 1758, Article 11(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Fire Services Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1758, Feb. 16, 1997; Presidential Decree No. 10655, Oct. 16, 1997; Presidential Decree No. 2020, Oct. 16, 1997; Presidential Decree No. 2020, Feb. 196, 200>

However, in addition to the facts as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that it is difficult to carry on the business without the so-called "le" used as a drinking place, such as the entertainment tavern in this case, and in addition, according to the evidence adopted by the court below, prior to each joint inspection, it was conducted on an entertainment drinking house belonging to a special area under the former Fire Services Act on March 3, 2000. In this case, the term "price" is deemed as a special area and the regular inspection was conducted on March 8, 200, and the fire officer can also take into account the fact that the fire officer issued an order to replace or remove the non-retardant substance with the non-retardant substance in his place of business and confirmed that its content was removed. Considering these circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the fire officers at the time of each joint inspection in accordance with the empirical rule were actually provided with the 2nd floor part along with the 1st floor part.

Therefore, a fire officer who participated in the joint inspection above is obligated to take measures such as applying the flame retardation provisions of special areas under Article 11 of the former Fire Services Act, removal of flame retardation products, or inspection of flame retardation performance, based on the actual status of his business. The purport and purpose of the former Fire Services Act to apply the flame retardation provisions to special areas and to give a fire officer the authority to order corrective measures with regard to the violation, as seen above, in light of the background leading up to the death of the fire and the deceased, and the process of planning and executing the joint inspection above, it is reasonable to view that there exists a proximate causal relation between the violation of the duty and the deceased's death as a fire.

D. In addition, according to the former method, the chief of a fire station, etc. may order a person, etc. who commits an act deemed dangerous to the prevention of a fire to prohibit or restrict the act (Article 4), and when necessary for the prevention or extinguishment of a fire, he/she may order the relevant person to make a necessary report, etc., or have the relevant public official enter the relevant area to inspect the location, structure, equipment or management status of the fire-fighting object, or to ask questions to the interested parties (Article 5), and where it is deemed necessary for fire prevention or to prevent the location, structure, equipment or management status of the fire-fighting object, or where it is deemed that the situation of the location, structure, equipment or management of the fire-fighting object is likely to cause danger to human life if necessary or if a fire occurs, he/she may order the interested parties to take other necessary measures (Article 6). Furthermore, the act of closing or destroying an escape or fire prevention facility (including locking money), the act of installing obstacles around the escape or fire-fighting facility, or prohibit the relevant public official from impeding the purpose of escape or fire-fighting activities, etc.

However, according to the facts of this case, the fire officers belonging to the defendant Jeollabuk-do had a lebry door with a lock device in the first floor and second floor of the building, and the first floor of the building had no windows installed with a lebry bridge to escape from the outside of the building, on the other hand, on the second floor of the building, by providing instructions related to the death of lebss and women caused by the entertainment drinking house fire, various fire safety measures conducted thereafter, and joint checkups by related agencies. In particular, in the case of "price", there is a place where entertainment visitors and lebs are conducted inside the building including the second floor, in addition to the first floor and the second floor of the building, and there is no window installed with a lebry bridge to prevent the death of lebs and women who had already occurred in the lebsculous Dong-dong-dong-si-si-si-si-si-si-si from becoming a lebalth of the building and the second floor of the building, as well as in the case where the fire and the second floor of the accident were not only caused.

In full view of these circumstances, a fire officer who participated in a joint inspection as above is obligated to confirm whether the iron text with the above locking device was a obstacle to escape in the event of a fire, and to take corrective measures such as the removal of the door or locking device. However, without taking any measures despite being aware of the existence of the above iron text, the inspection board made a false statement and report to the effect that there is no escape obstruction facility. Such violation of the duty of the fire officer is clearly unreasonable in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, and it is reasonable to deem that there exists a proximate causal relation as to the result of the death of the deceased.

E. Nevertheless, the court below held that there was no violation of the former Fire Services Act by failing to exercise the authority to issue an order to take corrective measures necessary to install and maintain escape and fire prevention facilities for “compensation,” on the grounds stated in its reasoning, even though the fire officers under the jurisdiction of Jeollabuk-do did not exercise the authority to issue an order to take corrective measures necessary to install and maintain escape and fire prevention facilities for “compensation.” In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the contents of fire officers’ duties, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The plaintiffs' grounds of appeal pointing this out are with merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiffs of this case, the part against the defendant-Appellant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. The above plaintiffs' respective appeals against the defendant's Republic of Korea and Gunsan and appeal against the defendant's Republic of Korea are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)