The significance of "defect in the installation and preservation of a structure" under Article 758 (1) of the Civil Act and the criteria for determining the existence of such defect.

Article 758(1) of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 94Da16328 Decided October 28, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 3112) Supreme Court Decision 2008Da61615 Decided February 11, 2010 (Gong2010Sang, 507)

Law Firm Loss Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Yang Hun-Hun, Attorney Effective-Gyeong, Counsel for defendant-appellant

State Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Kim Jin-hee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Na56087 decided November 28, 2012

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The defect in the installation and preservation of a structure under Article 758(1) of the Civil Act refers to a state in which a structure fails to meet safety requirements ordinarily for its use. In determining whether such safety requirements are met, it shall be determined on the basis of whether the installer and custodian of the structure has fulfilled his/her duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the risk of the structure (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Da16328, Oct. 28, 1994; 2008Da61615, Feb. 11, 2010, etc.).

The lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning based on its adopted evidence. 1) The Nonparty: (a) parked the instant vehicle normally in the parking zone of an apartment parking lot; (b) the National Science Investigation Institute, despite the possibility that the instant fire was caused by electrical causes inside the front part of the instant vehicle; (c) assessed that it is impossible to discuss the specific place and cause of combustion because the electric characteristics were not distinguished from the engine studs at the bottom of the vehicle due to severe combustion, such as the studs on the engine studs and the distribution line remaining around the lower part of the instant vehicle; and (d) the instant fire occurred more than 30 minutes after the Nonparty parked the instant vehicle; (b) it appears that the possibility of the instant vehicle’s combustion by the engine studs or human factors was imminent; and (d) the Nonparty did not have any other duty to install or maintain the instant vehicle on the ground that it was difficult to recognize that the Nonparty was not a fire or any other duty to maintain the instant vehicle on the ground that the Nonparty was not equipped with the instant vehicle.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on the recognition of defects in the installation and preservation of structures, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

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.

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)