A. Whether the owner is liable for damages under Article 758(1) of the Civil Act in a case where a direct occupant, who is the lessee of a house, or a person who is deemed to be in the same position, has suffered damages due to a defect in the installation or preservation of a structure (affirmative)

(b) The case holding that the lessee is liable for damages of the owner of a house with respect to an accident of which the rent for the workplace, which was placed in the lessee's room, died of addiction from the smoke gas that was newly laid down in the door;

A. In a case where damages are inflicted on others due to defects in the installation or preservation of a structure, the possessor of the structure is liable for damages first, and the possessor of the structure is liable for damages secondly unless the possessor neglects to exercise due care necessary for the prevention of damages. However, in a case where the possessor, the lessee of the structure, or a person deemed to be in the same position, suffers damages due to defects in the installation or preservation of the structure, the owner of the house is liable for damages as a person in charge under Article 758(1) of the Civil Code, and even if he was negligent in the preservation of the victim, it is only the reason for offsetting negligence.

(b) The case holding that the lessee is liable for damages of the owner of a house with respect to an accident caused by a person's workplace rent, who was placed in the leased room with the lessee, died from addiction to the new and greenhouse gas from the smoke.

(b)Article 758 and Article 623 of the Civil Code;

Supreme Court Decision 79Da466 Decided June 12, 1979 (Gong1979, 11987) (Gong1987) 88Meu1121 Decided March 14, 1989 (Gong1989, 606) 91Da29767 Decided December 24, 1991 (Gong192,676)

Plaintiff 1 and 3 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

Defendant Kim Chang-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na3207 delivered on June 26, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

If any damage is inflicted on another person due to a defect in the installation or preservation of a structure, the possessor of the structure shall first be liable for the damages, and the owner of the structure shall be liable for the damages secondly only if the possessor fails to exercise due care necessary for the prevention of damages. However, if the possessor directly who is the lessee of the structure or a person deemed to be in the same position as the lessee of the structure has suffered damages due to a defect in the installation or preservation of the structure, the owner of the house shall be liable for damages as the person in charge under Article 758(1) of the Civil Act, and even if the victim was negligent in the preservation of the structure, it shall be the ground for offsetting negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 7Da246, Aug. 23, 197; 8Da1121, Mar. 14, 1989).

According to the records, the court below's decision is acceptable that the defendant, the owner of the above house, is liable to compensate for damages caused by the above accident since September 10, 1989, and since July 6, 1990, the non-party 1 moved in the room that he leased with the non-party 2 and the non-party 3, his workplace, and recognized the death of the above non-party 2 as being addicted to coal gas due to the same circumstance as the reasoning of the judgment of the court below on September 20, 199, and on the premise that the above non-party 2 was in the same position as the non-party 1, the tenant of the above house, on the premise that he was in the same position as the above deceased, the above accident was caused by the defect in the preservation of the smoke installed on the wall, and therefore, the defendant, the owner of the above house, is not liable to compensate for damages caused by the above accident, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the liability for compensation for damages caused by the defect in the structure preservation, such as the above defect.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.