Plaintiff 1 and 12 others

Plaintiff 14 (Attorney Yellow-il, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff 15 and 7 others (Law Firm Young-soo, Attorney Lee Jong-hee, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Republic of Korea and two others (Attorneys Lee Han-hoon et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

April 13, 2005

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2002Gahap24497 Delivered on May 14, 2004

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs against the defendant Republic of Korea ordering payment below shall be revoked.

Defendant Republic of Korea shall pay to the Plaintiffs 5% interest per annum from January 29, 2002 to July 20, 2005, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment of the pertinent amount and each of the above amounts.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining appeals against Defendant Republic of Korea and appeals against Defendant Gunsan-si and Jeollabuk-do are dismissed.

3. The costs of appeal between the plaintiffs and the defendant Republic of Korea shall be 90% of the total costs of appeal between the plaintiffs and the defendant Republic of Korea, and the remainder shall be borne by the plaintiffs, and the costs of appeal between the plaintiffs and the defendant Gunsan, and Jeollabuk-do shall

4. The part on which money is paid under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

1. Purport of claim

The defendants jointly and severally pay to the plaintiffs 5% interest per annum and 20% interest per annum from January 29, 2002 to the date of the first instance judgment with respect to the corresponding amount as stated in attached sheet 4 to each of the above amounts, and from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiffs shall be revoked. The defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the plaintiffs 5% interest per annum from January 29, 2002 to the date of the original judgment, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, evidence 1-1 through 13-2, evidence 3-1, evidence 5, 7-1 through 48, evidence 5-1 through 10, evidence 6-1 through 10, evidence 7-1, evidence 8-1 through 7, evidence 9-1 through 30, evidence 10-1, evidence 3-1 through 15, evidence 3-1 through 26, evidence 15-1, evidence 3-2, evidence 5-1, evidence 3-2, evidence 5-1, evidence 3-1 to 3-1, evidence 5-2, evidence 3-1, evidence 5-1, evidence 5-2, evidence 3-1 to 3-1, evidence 5-2, evidence 1 to 3-1, evidence 5-1, evidence 16-2, evidence 16-1, 18, evidence 20-2, evidence 1 to 26-1, evidence 27

A. On July 195, Co-Defendant 3 of the first instance trial and Co-Defendant 4 of the first instance trial, who are his wife, operated the “Gindo-style entertainment tavern” (hereinafter referred to as the “Gindo-dong 1 omitted”) on the first floor located in the Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong 1 omitted. Around August 1997, the first business license was made on February 28, 197. Around August 1997, he received an additional “Gindo-style entertainment tavern” (hereinafter referred to as the “price”) located in the same Dong-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong 1 omitted and operated it in connection with

B. Co-Defendant 3 and 4 of the first instance trial: (a) leased the arche and building; (b) set up a passage between the arche and the arche in order to repair the interior for the operation of the arche and the building; (c) set up a large number of rooms, such as a 19 unit of the building that did not obtain a business license as a house on the register in order to use it as a leap place, such as a lele, a 19 unit of the building on the second floor of the building that was located on the register; and (d) installed electric wires, such as a leap light and a tample, without replacing the electric wires for each room; and (e) installed the leapture on the floor and the wall, etc. using the leaplet, sphere, paperet, etc. with strong inflammable.

(c) Co-defendant 3 and 4 of the first instance court: (a) opened a studio on the window so as to prevent female employees from escape by avoiding their lives; (b) installed a special studio inside the entrance door that can only be opened as keys at the main entrance, but on September 19, 200, the case of death of female women due to a fire of an entertainment worker in the studio-dong in military mountain-si; (c) closed the windows of the first floor in order to avoid the snow of the control body; (d) changed the studio, which was fixed at the windows of the second floor to the 2nd floor; and (d) opened the 1st floor to the front door of the 2nd floor to the right door of the 1st floor; and (d) opened the first floor to the 1st floor to the front door of the 2nd floor to the front door of the 1st floor to the front door of the 2nd floor to the front door of the 1st floor to the front door to the 3rd employee.

라. 2002. 1. 29. 11:50경 아방궁 계산대 위에 놓여있던 무선전화기의 어댑터 플러그 부분에서 전선의 누전으로 인한 화재가 발생하여 그 불길이 대가까지 번졌다. 화재는 약 30분만에 진화되었으나, 대가 1층에서 잠자고 있던 별지 도표 ① 망인란 기재 여종업원 13명과 망 소외 3, 7은 1층 현관 출입문이나 건물 외부와 통하도록 철제 사다리가 설치되어 있는 대가 2층의 창문 중 어느 쪽으로도 탈출하지 못하고 바닥 장판, 플라스틱 술 박스 등이 타면서 발생한 유독가스에 의하여 질식사하였는데, 시신들은 대가 1층에서 2층으로 올라가는 계단의 철제문 앞에서 발견되었고, 망 소외 3 옆에서 그 철제문의 열쇠가 발견되었다.

E. Meanwhile, the military police station opened 10,000 m2 within the distance of 50m from the 8th and 190m of son’s clothes, such as a laps, and Nonparty 8, the representative of the 3rd co-defendant 3 of the first instance trial and the head of the 1stm200 m20,000 m2 of the 2nd police station, who was in charge of the investigation into the 10th and the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2000 m200 m200 m2 of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 2nd of the 1st of the 1st of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 1st of the 2nd of the 1st of the 2nd of the 1st of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 1st of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 1st of the 3th of the m.

F. While Nonparty 12, the head of the Military Police Station and the head of the crime prevention guidance division, conducted a survey against employees of entertainment establishments as part of the “Special Control Plan for the Areas Stacking of Prostitution and Entertainment Establishments,” which was enforced as of September 21, 200, Nonparty 12, the head of the crime prevention police station and the head of the crime prevention guidance division, he heard the statement that he is forced to leaps from Nonparty 13, the female employees of the entertainment establishments, and took the statement that he is forced to leaps from Nonparty 13, the head of the first instance court co-defendant 5, who was identified as the owner of the consideration, was forced to leaps and detained to leaps, and he was indicted after being forwarded to the investigation division with Nonparty 13, the co-defendant 13 and the co-defendant 5 of the first instance court, the police officer’s omission of the duties of the police officer,

G. On May 2, 2001, from October 16, 2001 to November 8, 2001, the Gunsan Police Station stated that “the second person is one’s mother,” and suggested that “the police officer, who was a police officer, did not enter the interview in an emergency room, and did not open an interview or investigation into the entrance and exit of a member of the Gunsan-si, such as the opening and opening of the house.” On May 23, 2001, the deceased non-party 14, who died of the fire of this case, was forced to do so in response to the head of the business or the question, and forced the employees to do so in each of the following items: “the second person is one’s mother,” and “the police officer, who was a police officer to whom he belongs, did not enter the interview in the entrance and exit, and did not open an interview or investigation into the entrance and exit of the central entertainment shed in order to prevent the employees from leaping.”

H. On July 12, 2002, the first instance court’s co-defendant 3, 4, and 5, etc. were convicted of both the non-party 10, 9, and 11, a police officer of the military police station, on the grounds of the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, violation of the Act on the Prevention of Prostitution, etc., Act on the Prevention of Prostitution, gross negligence, and the crime of death by negligence, etc., and they were convicted of some changes in sentencing in the appellate court, and the judgment of conviction was finalized.

자. 군산소방서가 주관한 “유흥주점 밀집지역 업소 합동 소방점검”이 2001. 4. 9., 군산경찰서에서 주관한 “월동기 대비 유흥주점 밀집지역 안전시설 점검”이 2001. 10. 19. 대가와 아방궁에 각 실시되었는데, 군산시청 주택과 주택행정계 소속 공무원인 소외 15는 2001. 10. 19.자 합동점검에 불참하고, 군산시청 환경위생과 위생지도계 소속 공무원인 소외 5는 2001. 10. 19.자 합동점검시 대가 2층이 용도변경되어 무허가영업이 이루어지고, 대가와 아방궁 사이에 통로가 있음을 알고도 필요한 조치를 취하지 아니하여 직무를 유기하였다는 혐의로 2002. 6. 27. 모두 기소유예처분을 받았고, 군산소방서 소방관 소외 6은 두 차례의 합동점검 모두, 소외 16은 2001. 4. 9.자 합동점검에 참여한 후 특별소방안전검검부를 작성하면서 대가의 1층과 2층 사이에 잠금 장치가 있는 샷시 출입문이 있음을 알았음에도 피난장애시설이 없다는 취지로 기재함으로써 허위공문서를 작성하고 이를 행사하였다는 범죄사실로 약식기소되었고, 약식명령에 이의를 제기하지 아니하여 그대로 확정되었다. 군산소방서장인 소외 17은 화재 발생에 대한 책임으로 1개월간 직위해제처분을 받았다.

E. As the bereaved family members of the deceased 13 female employees, the Plaintiffs are in the position corresponding to the relevant column in the attached Table 3. Among them, the net was deceased on June 13, 2004, and Plaintiff 14, the wife, was inherited solely through a division consultation among the heirs.

2. Determination on the claim against Defendant Republic of Korea

A. Whether to recognize responsibility for the occurrence of damage caused by confinement and coercion

(1) The police officers, along with the prevention, suppression, and investigation of crimes, are engaged in protecting people's lives, bodies, and property as well as maintaining public peace and order. For the smooth performance of their duties, various authorities are granted under relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers and the Criminal Procedure Act. Thus, police officers performing specific duties may exercise various authorities assigned to them in response to all circumstances and take necessary measures. Such authorities are generally delegated at reasonable discretion based on the professional judgment of police officers. However, in cases where it is deemed that the police officers’ failure to exercise their authority and take necessary measures is clearly unreasonable in light of the intent and purpose of granting authority to police officers, such non-exercise of authority is deemed to violate official duties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da49009, Sept. 23, 2004).

(2) Since the above facts and evidence revealed that the plaintiffs were forced to do so immediately after the death of the deceased, the joint defendants 5 of the first instance trial, who were the title of business permission, had been forced to do so by using the above-mentioned investigation equipment, and even if they were forced to do so, the fact that they were forced to do so to do so at other entertainment facilities or nearby the business, and the fact that they were allowed to do so by means of correcting the entrance and emergency exit so that they could not escape after the death of the business, the military police station did not know that they were forced to do so by the above-mentioned investigation equipment, and that they did not have any duty to do so, and that they were forced to do so by using the above-mentioned investigation equipment, and that they did not know that they were forced to do so by the police officers of the first instance trial, and that they were forced to do so by the police officers of the first instance trial, and that they did not know that they were forced to do so during the investigation and inspection of the women's life.

(3) Considering the circumstances shown in the argument of this case, such as the age, status status, and property status of the above deceased, it is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation money to the above deceased as stated in the deceased’s Schedule 6, as stated in the deceased’s Schedule 8, as stated in the Plaintiff’s Schedule 8. If consolation money is added up with the inheritance of inheritance and the unique portion of consolation money, the sum of consolation money to be paid by the plaintiffs shall be the corresponding amount as stated in the column of the

B. Whether to recognize liability for the occurrence of death caused by a fire

(1) The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant Republic of Korea should compensate for damages caused by the negligence in the course of performing his/her duties, which resulted in the death of the deceased due to fire, because of the failure of the police officers belonging to the military police station to take administrative measures, such as the suspension of their business, by neglecting confinement and coercion, and by failing to give administrative notification as prescribed by the Act on the Regulation on the Regulation of Amusement Businesses Affecting Public Morals, even if he/she did control the

(2) In order to claim damages against a third party due to a public official’s violation of an official duty imposed by a law, if a third party is damaged, there is no proximate causal relation between the public official’s breach of duty and the third party’s loss. In determining the existence of proximate causal relation, not only the probability of a general result, but also the purpose of the law and other action rules that impose an official duty, or the form and degree of damage, etc. of the harmful act, shall be comprehensively taken into account. If the purpose of protecting the law that imposes an official duty is not to protect the interests and safety of the members of society, but also to regulate the internal order of the public public interest or the administrative agency, if the purpose of protecting the law that imposes an official duty is not to protect the interests and safety of the members of society, it cannot be said that there is a proximate causal relation between the public official’s violation of an official duty and the damage suffered by a third party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da34891,

In light of the purpose of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers and the Criminal Procedure Act, it is difficult to recognize the duty of police officers to generally prevent fire, etc. The purpose of the Act on the Regulation of Amusement Businesses Affecting Public Morals is to contribute to the preservation of public morals and the protection of juveniles by impairing good morals and regulating acts that undermine the sound fostering of juveniles (Article 1). As such, Article 6(1) of the above Act provides that the chief of a police station shall notify the permission authority of the violations of the amusement business operator, etc., such as the amusement business operator, for the sake of public interest, it cannot be deemed to be for the sake of the safety and interest of the general public. Thus, there is no proximate causal relation between the violation of duty by the above police officers and the damage suffered by the death of the deceased. Accordingly,

3. Determination as to the claim against Defendant Kunsan-si

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the non-party 5, who was in charge of the business of entertainment and danran business guidance and inspection under the control of the Military Service Environment Sanitation and Sanitary Guidance, was engaged in business without permission since the use of the two levels of consideration at the joint inspection on October 19, 201 was changed to the place of business, and the non-party 5, who was in charge of the business of entertainment and danran business guidance and inspection was conducted without permission. In violation of the facility standards under the Food Sanitation Act, the plaintiffs filed a complaint against the closure of the unauthorized place of business and the owner of the business despite the fact that the iron paper was installed between the first and the second floor in consideration in violation of the facility standards under the Food Sanitation Act, or issued a corrective order to remove the iron paper and reconstruct the wall removed for the construction of the passage, and did not comply with the order, he did not take all measures such as ordering the suspension of business, and therefore, the death of the above deceased and the plaintiffs.

B. As seen earlier, the fire of this case was caused by the negligence of Co-Defendant 3, 4, etc. of the first instance trial, which caused a short circuit not to replace the sworn wire, and caused a fire easily by using inflammable materials. The purpose of the Food Sanitation Act is to contribute to the improvement of national health by preventing sanitary harm caused by food and improving the quality of food nutrition (Article 1), and it is difficult to conclude that the purpose of obtaining permission for a certain business is to establish the facility standards for food service business under the Food Sanitation Act, and that the purport of obtaining permission for a certain business is to protect personal life and property from a fire accident. Even if there were violations as alleged by the plaintiffs, it cannot be said that the non-party 5 did not directly affect the death of the above deceased, and it cannot be said that the non-party 5 did not have any substantial causal relation between the price and the sloping womb with the above deceased, and thus, it cannot be said that there was a considerable causal relation between the deceased and the deceased’s duty of care.

4. Determination as to the claim against Defendant Jeollabuk-do

A. The plaintiffs did not properly install fire-fighting systems and fire-fighting facilities prescribed by the Fire Services Act on the Abdo and the consideration of the fire-fighting officers belonging to the Gunsan Fire-Fighting Division under the defendant Jeollabuk-do. Despite being aware of the fact that there is a high risk of fire due to old electric facilities, the plaintiffs did not take measures such as a fire inspection, repair order, and fire-fighting law violation. In particular, the fire officers were aware that the fire-fighting officers were installed with a escape facility between the first and second floors of the consideration, and they violated their official duties. Since there exists a causal relationship between the fire-fighting officers' violation of their duties and the fire of this case, the defendant Jeollabuk-do asserts that the above deceased and the plaintiffs are liable to compensate for damages caused by the fire of this case.

B. An entertainment drinking house identical to an arche with a arche shall be a special place under the former Fire Services Act (amended by Act No. 6893, May 29, 2003). The former methods of action shall have flame retardation performance (Article 11(1)); if an article subject to flame retardation in a special place is not subject to flame retardation performance inspection, the chief of a fire station, etc. may order an interested person in the special area to remove the article or have the performance of flame retardation performance inspection (Article 11(3)); if an interested person in the special area fails to have the authority to take measures necessary for the removal or performance of a fire-fighting officer’s duty, he/she shall install and maintain a fire-fighting system prescribed by the Presidential Decree in consideration of the size, purpose, number of accommodation, etc. of the fire-fighting object (Article 30(1)); if an interested person fails to perform his/her duty to take measures necessary for the removal or damage of an article subject to flame retardation under the Building Act, he/she shall not order the person concerned to take such measures as are deemed unlawful (Article 30-2).

In light of the above facts, the above 14 square meters and 19, 21 through 24, 29, 34, 37, and 1-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Fire-Fighting Facilities Act, which were no longer than 10 square meters of evidence Nos. 15 and 10-1 through 4, 11-2, and 10-2 of the former Fire-Fighting Facilities Act, which were no longer than 10 square meters of the fire-fighting facilities and were no longer than 19-2, and the revised fire-fighting equipment Nos. 19-1 and 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Fire-Fighting Facilities Act which were no longer than 9-1 and no more than 9-14, which were no longer than 16-1 and no more than 2-14, which were the previous fire-fighting equipment for the purpose of fire-fighting and no more than 2-1,000-2, the remaining fire-fighting equipment and no more than 3-2,000-1.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant Republic of Korea is obligated to pay the plaintiffs with 5% per annum under the Civil Act from January 29, 2002, which is the fire day of this case, to July 20, 2005, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of complete payment. Thus, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant Republic of Korea against the defendant are accepted within the above recognition scope, and the remaining claims against the defendant Republic of Korea and the claims against the defendant Kunsan-si, and Jeollabuk-do against the defendant Republic of Korea are dismissed for reasons without merit. Since the part against the plaintiffs against the defendant Republic of Korea among the judgment of the first instance court, which has partially different conclusions, is unfair, the payment of the above cited part shall be revoked, and the plaintiffs' remaining appeal against the defendant Republic of Korea and the appeal against the defendant Gunsan-si, and Jeollabuk-do shall be dismissed as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Judge)