Scope of examination as to whether or not the defects in the installation or preservation of electric wires are found to be related to the fire that occurred in the vicinity thereof.

Even if a single seafarer is related to a fire that occurred in the vicinity of a high voltage cable, the defect in the installation and preservation of the cable can not be determined without examining whether or not the installation and preservation of the electric cable can be equipped with a security facility in preparation for an accident where a high voltage cable is installed, or if a electric cable is installed entirely due to a fire, such as a high voltage cable, if it is possible for the electric cable to be installed at the time of a fire or a combination of vessels, or if it is possible for the electric cable to be installed at the time of such accident, the defect in the installation and preservation of the electric cable can not be determined without examining whether or not the equipment to block the heat can be installed.

Article 758 of the Civil Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

[Defendant-Appellant] Korea Electric Power Co., Ltd.

Seoul High Court Decision 79Na755 delivered on November 2, 1979

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

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the non-party 2, who is the deceased's assertion that the non-party 3 cable was removed from the 1978.7.02:00, and the non-party 2, who is the first place to enter the ○○ Factory, had a high voltage of 20 V connected to the second day, and died immediately above the ground, and the non-party 3, who is the owner or possessor of the wire, did not look at the safety of the non-party 4, and the testimony that the non-party 2, who was the owner or possessor of the non-party 3, did not have any other natural or artificial change in the surrounding environment after the installation of the non-party 4, which caused the death of the non-party 3, because the non-party 4, who was the first place to the non-party 4, had no equipment to replace the non-party 1's new electrical wire, and thus, the testimony that the non-party 3's new electrical wire was not known at the time of the accident.

However, according to the above facts, if the electric wires were to be replaced with aluminium electric wires at the time of 4 or 5 years, it is difficult for the court below to readily conclude that the electric wires were replaced with aluminium electric wires without finding out the nature of the aluminium electric wires and their inner condition, etc. (the original electric wires were not clearly identified) and that there were only one of the electric wires that were replaced with aluminium electric wires at the time of the initial installation of the new electric wires at the time of the new installation of the new electric wires, and that there were no other high-end electric wires which were found to have been replaced with the new electric wires at the time of the initial installation of the new electric wires at the time of the new installation of the new electric wires, and that there were no other high-end electric wires at the time of the new installation of the new electric wires at the new electric wires at the time of the new installation of the new electric wires at the time of the new installation of the new electric wires at the time of the new installation of the new electric wires at the time of the new installation of the new electric wires at the present.

Therefore, the court below did not fully examine the defects in the installation and preservation of a single seafarer or structure of the electric wire of this case and thereby affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, it is reasonable to discuss this point, so the judgment of the court below is not reversed.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court, which is the court below, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Jeong Tae-won (Presiding Justice)