Cases where there is an error of not taking into account the fault of the victim in calculating the amount of damages;

Since this building is a wooden building with a height of 9 meters and 15 meters, if a fire is likely to occur due to a scarcity in May and 199, it is recognized that the victim in the dental laboratory in the same building could have known the fact that the fire was destroyed due to the accident, unless there are special circumstances, and if the victim's intrusion in the dental laboratory in the same building is recognized as a separate responsibility due to a violation of the regulations, the victim's intrusion should be recognized as a negligence in the occurrence of the fire itself, even if it is not recognized that the occurrence of the fire in this building was negligent. Therefore, the victim's negligence should be determined in calculating the amount of damages.

Article 763 of the Civil Act, Article 396 of the Civil Act

2 others, Kim Sang-hoon

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 66Na2106 delivered on April 13, 1967, Seoul High Court Decision 66Na2106 delivered on April 13, 1967

The part of the original judgment against the plaintiff Kim Sang-ok and Kim Jong-ju shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The appeal against the plaintiff is dismissed.

The expenses incurred by an appeal against the plaintiff Go-C shall be borne by the defendant.

As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant Litigation Performers:

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the original judgment, the victim 1 took care of the dental laboratory of the 7th Army Corps, not dental team, despite the fact that it was installed as a dental laboratory of the dynasium of the dynasium of the dynasium of the dynasium of the dynasium of the dynasium of the dynasium of the dynasium of the dynasium of the dynasium of the dynasium of the dynasium of the dynasium of the dynasium of the dynasium of the dynasium of the dynasium of the dynasium of the dynasium of the dynasium of the dynasium of the dynasium of the dynasium of the dynasium.

There is no statement against Plaintiff C as the ground of appeal against Plaintiff C.

Therefore, according to Articles 400 and 406 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

The judges of the Supreme Court, the two judges (Presiding Judge) of the two judges of the Supreme Court and the vice versa.