The case recognizing liability for damages on the ground that there is a defect in the installation or maintenance of a structure due to the scambling of the fall prevention facilities or the failure to install safety facilities;

The case recognizing liability for damages on the ground that there is a defect in the installation or maintenance of a structure due to the scambling of the fall prevention facilities or the failure to install safety facilities;

Article 758 of the Civil Act

Lee Young-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant Kim Nam-jin

Song-si et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellee-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na9744 delivered on August 22, 1990

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

1. We examine the grounds of appeal in the case of defendant Song-han.

On the first ground for appeal

In light of the records, the fact-finding of the court below related to the defendant Song-si, and if the facts are the same, the accident in this case occurred due to the defect in the construction and management of the fall prevention facilities of the defendant Song-si's public structure, and the defect in the construction and management of the Slar, which is the appurtenant building to the building in this case of the defendant Song-gu, the judgment of the court below is just.

The court below acknowledged that, at the same time, Defendant Song-si, which was installed in front of the second floor of the instant building at the time of removing part of the steel rail raileds installed in the instant overpasses, was connected to the lower part of the second floor of the instant building to the lower part of the instant building at the same time before the second floor south of the instant building, and that, at the same time, the lower court did not have any legitimate effect on the lower part of the instant structure on the ground that, in the end of the connecting part, he was installed by installing cement mortars on the upper part of the instant building at the same end of the connecting part, he did not install the instant structure at the same time, and that, inasmuch as the said cement powder and the instant bridge were installed at the same time as it did not have any effect on the installation of the instant structure at the same time, the lower court did not have any such effect on the installation of the instant structure at the same time as the instant facilities or the installation of the instant facilities at the same time as it did not have been separated from the installation of the instant structure at the same time.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the court below did not find contradictory facts, and that there was no defect in the establishment or preservation of the land bridge in the case of the defendant Songtan-si, on the ground that the above Gohap portion was not a public facility. Therefore, there is no argument in the opposite opinion.

On the second ground for appeal

In this case, we accept the ratio of comparative negligence applied by the court below, and this cannot be said to be unlawful because it is insufficient to do so. The argument is without merit.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal by Defendant Kim Jae-han

There is no violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, in the fact-finding related to the defendant Kim Jae-han.

Since the accident location of this case is located outside the boundary line of the land owned by the same defendant, it cannot be said that there was no defect in the installation or preservation of the Slar part, which is an annex to the building of this case owned by the defendant Kim Jae-do, and the court below did not recognize that Slar, etc. was defective on the ground that the building of this case was installed without the permission of the defendant Song Jae-gu, and if there is a difference between the cement powder and the Triju, there was a danger of falling between children, even if there was a danger of falling, the court below recognized that there was a defect in the reason that the prevention facilities were not properly fulfilled

Therefore, the building of this case and Slar cannot be said to have been held liable for damages incurred by the defect in the installation, preservation, and even if the failure to prevent the space was in compliance with the direction of the employee of the Sintan-si, it cannot be asserted against the plaintiffs even if they were to follow the direction of the employee of the Sintan-si.

Therefore, there is no reason to argue in the opposite position.

3. Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)