2013Na51759 Liability

1. A;

2. B

3. C.

4. D;

5. E.

6. F;

7. G.

8. H;

9. J;

10. K;

11. L.

12. M;

13.N

14. 0

15. P;

16. Q.

Plaintiffs (Law Firm R)

1. Busan Metropolitan City;

Representative Market Number of Sicks

Attorney S et al.

2. T:

3. U;

Defendant 2 and 3 Attorney V

4.W.

5. X;

6. Y;

7. W.

Busan District Court Decision 2012Gahap16974 Decided August 29, 2013

May 29, 2014

August 21, 2014

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, and K, corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid below, shall be revoked.

Defendant Busan Metropolitan City, W, X,Y, and W shall pay to each Plaintiff A and B 2,749,69, and 43,82,255 won to Plaintiff C, and 25,43,248 won to Plaintiff D, respectively, and 19,807,008 won to Plaintiff F, and G, respectively, and 45,614,016 won to Plaintiff C, and 20% interest per annum from May 5, 2012 to August 21, 2014, and from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The part against Defendant T or U among the judgment of the first instance court is revoked, and the plaintiffs’ claim against Defendant T or U corresponding to the above revoked part is dismissed in entirety.

3. The appeal filed against the defendant T and U by the plaintiff A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J., and the remaining appeal filed against the plaintiffs in Busan Metropolitan City, W, X,Y, and W and all appeals filed against the plaintiffs in Busan Metropolitan City are dismissed.

4. Of the total litigation costs, the part arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant T and U shall be borne by the plaintiffs, and 20% of the part arising between the plaintiff A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, K, and defendant Busan Busan Metropolitan City, W, X, Y and the defendant Busan Metropolitan City shall be borne by the plaintiffs, respectively, and the costs of appeal arising between the plaintiff L, M, N,O, P, Q, and the defendant Busan Metropolitan City shall be borne by the defendant Busan Metropolitan City.

4. The portion of payment of the amount under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendants served 232,050,776 won on each of the plaintiffs Gap and Eul, 477,30 won, 245,693,35 won on each of the plaintiffs Eul and Eul, 245,693,35 won on each of the plaintiffs Eul and Eul, 208,070 won, 208,070 won on each of the plaintiffs Eul, M, N, P, P, and Q, and 3,00,00 won on each of the above money from May 5, 2012 to the final delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case; 5% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment; 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment; 50,160,000 won on each of the plaintiffs Eul and Eul; 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment; 30% per annum from 205% per annum to the day of complete payment; 2015% per annum

2. The purport of appeal by the plaintiff A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, and K

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiffs falling under the part ordering payment under the below shall be revoked. The defendants shall each of the plaintiffs Gap and Eul 52,99,386 won, 106,764,511 won, 106,496 won, 106,496 won, 496 won, 46,496 won, 46,315,708 won, 49,114,016 won, 272, 247,872 won, and 98,28,032 won from May 5, 2012 to August 29, 2013, 200 per annum from the following day to the date of full payment, 20% per annum, 174,019, 84, and 50% per annum to the plaintiff Eul, and 5% per annum to the date of full payment, 20% per annum from 25.25% per annum.

3. Purport of the appeal by the defendant Busan Metropolitan City

Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the defendant Busan Metropolitan City shall be revoked, and the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant Busan Metropolitan City shall be dismissed.

4. Purport of appeal by the defendant T or U

Among the judgment of the first instance court, the part against Defendant T and U shall be revoked, and all of the plaintiffs' claims against Defendant T and U corresponding to the above revoked part shall be dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 5, 2012, around 20:52, the fire (hereinafter referred to as the “fire in this case”) occurred inside the “BB” (hereinafter referred to as “the main store in this case”) of the 3rd floor (area 559.41m2) of the 2nd underground and the 6nd floor building (area 3,987.23m2, hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) of the 3nd floor (area 3,987.23m2, hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”).

B. Defendant T and U are co-owners holding 4/5, 1/5 shares of the instant building and its site, and Defendant W, X,Y, and W leased 3 floors above the instant building from Defendant T to operate the main points of the instant building.

C. Around June 2, 2009, Defendant Y and W invested an amount of KRW 225,00,000, and obtained permission to change the use of the instant third floor of the instant building from the Busan Jin-gu Office for the second class neighborhood living facilities to amusement tavern (e.g., amusement tavern). From July 2, 2009 to July 2, 2009, Defendant W started operating the instant main shop from July 2, 2009 on the ground that Defendant W was the business president, and Defendant W was working at the said main shop from that time until June 2010. Defendant X invested KRW 30,000,000 after Defendant W left the business, followed Defendant W’s business license and reported on the succession to the status of the business operator, and was owned by the said report to the Busan Jin-gu Office, and was the head of the instant fire at that time.

D. The main point of this case was composed of 24 rooms, 3 emergency exits, toilets, corridors, multi-use rooms, etc. around June 2009 at the time of permission to change the purpose of use of amusement facilities. Meanwhile, the three emergency exits were composed of 1 emergency exit No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as "1 emergency exit"), Article 9 (1) 1 (d) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Publicly Used Establishments Act, and Article 36 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, which separately installed outdoor escape stairs at the time of the change of the purpose of use of amusement facilities, 3 emergency exit no. 6 emergency exit No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as "X 2 emergency exit"), and 3 emergency exit no. 2 of the main entrance and exit that were installed adjacent to the main entrance and exit of this case, and 10 emergency exit no. 2 of the main entrance and exit of the defendant 2 and no. 3 emergency exit no.

E. At the time of the instant fire, customers were included in the number 14, 15, 16, 19, and 25 as indicated in the Appendix No. 14, 15, 16, 19, and 25. At the time of the instant fire, 5, 2, 8, and 12, 25, and 14, as indicated in the Appendix No. 14,15, and 16, as to the occurrence of the instant fire, customers who were located in the number 19, 19, and evacuated from the main point of the instant fire to the outside of the instant accident. However, the number 19, EF, GG, H, H, H, K, 16, and 8, and 16, followed the passage of the instant fire to the GJ No. 1, 7, 14, and 4, 14, from among the above dead persons, to the GCC No. 6, 1, 4, and to the passage of the instant fire.

F. On May 5, 2012, the instant fire was completely extinguishingd by fire officers dispatched after receiving a fire report on May 5, 2012 at around 22:02 on the same day, and the direct private person of the Deceased was presumed to be a quality-style fire due to smoke and inhalement of toxic gases.

G. The National Institute of Scientific Investigation presumed that the instant fire was launched at the end of the opposite part of the entrance of the 24th page as stated in the attached Form No. 24, and that there was a high possibility that the instant fire might have been spread due to the sudden damage between lines at the electric wires installed above the ceiling of the said point.

H. Defendant X,Y, and W were indicted for violating the Fire-Fighting Systems Act in relation to the instant fire (hereinafter “Fire-Fighting Systems Act”) and was sentenced to a suspended sentence for August 28, 2012 due to negligence on the ground that: (a) Defendant X,Y, and W was negligent in performing the duty to manage and check electric facilities, etc. within the main points of this case; (b) the duty to install and maintain various fire-fighting-related facilities; and (c) the duty to protect customers from disasters, such as fire, etc.; and (d) Defendant W was sentenced to a suspended sentence for two years for a reason that the main points of this case corresponding to a specific fire-fighting object under the Fire-Fighting Systems Act; (d) the manager and possessor of the main points of this case corresponding to a specific fire-fighting object of this case; and (e) the third emergency district was remodeled to a room enabling customers with the attached rooms and closed the said emergency district.

Defendant X, Y, and W appealed, and the appellate court rendered a judgment of the first instance on May 10, 2013 that acquitted Defendant Y and W, and sentenced Defendant X to three-year imprisonment by destroying the first instance judgment, and sentenced Defendant X to the dismissal of an appeal. The said judgment became final and conclusive on May 21, 2013.

I. Meanwhile, in relation to the instant fire, MM, currently employed by Defendant T and U, was prosecuted for committing a crime of occupational injury, occupational injury, or violation of the Fire-Fighting Systems Act, and was sentenced to a fine of KRW 5,00,000 as a result of conviction in the first instance trial (Seoul District Court 2012Dadan8374) on February 13, 2013. Accordingly, MM appealed, and the appellate court (Seoul District Court 2013830) acquitted all the facts charged on October 10, 2013, and the prosecutor appealed to the final appeal (Supreme Court 2013Do13200) as of the date of the closing of argument in the instant trial (Supreme Court 2013Do13200).

(j) Plaintiff A and B were the parents of the network DD, Plaintiff L were the parents of the network DD, Plaintiff C was the father of the network EE, Plaintiff N was the mother of the network EE ( Plaintiff C received consolation money and the right to notify transfer related to the fire of this case from NN on June 1, 2012, and notified the Defendants of the above transfer by delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case. N was decided on June 25, 2012 by requesting the Busan Family Court to accept the renunciation of inheritance from the above court on the ground that Plaintiff D and N were the parents of the network E; Plaintiff F, Plaintiff C’s parent of the network, Plaintiff 0, Plaintiff 0 and Plaintiff 2’s father of the network, Plaintiff HH’s father’s heir’s heir’s heir’s heir’s heir’s heir, Plaintiff 2, and Plaintiff GH’s heir’s heir’s heir’s heir’s heir’s heir and Plaintiff 2, and Plaintiff 2GH’s heir’s heir’s heir.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 9, Gap evidence 16 through 29, Eul evidence 1 through 10, Eul evidence 20 through 21, Eul evidence 31, Eul evidence 35, Eul evidence 40, Eul evidence 1 and video (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

3. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Whether Defendant W, X, Y, and W is liable for damages

1) Facts of recognition

A) Defendant W,Y, and W obtained permission to change the purpose of use of amusement facilities (e.g., amusement station) from the Busan Jin-gu Office in three emergency districts. Accordingly, on July 1, 2009, the main construction of the instant main construction was completed and issued a complete certificate of safety facilities, etc. from the Busan Jin-gu Office. The Busan Jin-gun notified Defendant W of the results of the confirmation of safety facilities, etc. along with the above complete certificate, and notified the completion of the confirmation of safety facilities, etc., and the improvement, repair, or structural modification of the internal facilities, such as safety facilities, etc., the Busan Metropolitan City must be confirmed, and the emergency exit during the business hours must always be kept open, and the passage shall not be loaded on the passage. Nevertheless, the Defendant W, Y, and W installed an emergency exit via the emergency exit around October 3, 2009 to prevent the removal of the emergency exit, etc. into the string of the instant main entrance, and the 3rd cable.

B) In addition, around June 201, Defendant X,Y, and W installed a separate door on the passage leading to the second emergency exit, and used it for the purpose of warehouse, such as storing alcoholic beverages, etc. in the space between the said door and the second emergency exit. Since the said door was installed, the “emergency-gu sign, etc. installed above the second emergency exit inside the instant main shop” was not visible.

C) Each room of the instant main station was marked with an escape guide. The escape guide map is marked to be maintained normally by all the 1,2, and 3 emergency exits. In relation to the method of evacuation in case of a fire, a total of 4 evacuation pathss from the 1,2, and 3 emergency exits to the main entrance and exit.

is directed to evacuate.

D) At around 20:50 on the date of the instant fire occurrence, Defendant X opened an entrance door No. 24 as indicated in the attached Form No. 24, which is close to the Karter, and acquired agricultural smoke, and discovered flames in the report, and immediately sought a flood alarm device installed in each room and corridor or each room with customers, and without notifying the employees of the fire, attempted to extinguish the fire by using the fire extinguishing machine with the worker PP, without taking any measures to notify the fire, and even after the passage of approximately two minutes, the inside of the instant main point was evacuated in the direction of the main entrance, and even after the lapse of about two minutes, it was impossible to completely distinguish the front side of the Karter from the smoked from the aforesaid 24.

마) 피고 X, Y, W은 평소 종업원들에게 소화, 통보 및 손님들을 안전한 장소로 대피시키고 유도하는 훈련 등의 소방훈련과 휴대용비상조명등의 사용방법, 비상벨의 위치 및 사용방법 등 소방안전관리에 필요한 교육을 실시하지 아니하였다. 한편 이 사건 화재 당시 이 사건 주점에는 종업원 PP, QQ, RR 등이 일을 하고 있었는데, 이들 중 PP, QQ은 손님들에게 화재발생사실을 전파하거나 피난방향을 안내하는 등의 조치

Without being aware of the occurrence of the instant fire, R evacuated without being able to evacuate out of the married, and after having been aware of the occurrence of the instant fire, “R shall be punished by fine” on the water of the customers, and delayed the evacuation of the customers, and only when the said fire spreads more, R opened a door No. 25 as indicated in the attached Form No. 25 to the effect that “the said fire is likely to break out to only 1-2 of the opening customer,” and evacuated the married customer without notifying the customers of the direction of the accessible entrance.” The customers listed in the attached Form No. 19 to the attached Form No. 19 to the effect that “the deceased did not properly spread the fact of the fire, but went out of the room.” The employees in the attached Form No. 25 to the deceased did not have been aware of the direction of the fire, but did not have been able to find out the direction of the escape as above, but did not have been known to the inside.

F) On November 7, 201, no later than six months prior to the occurrence of the instant fire on the second floor of the instant building, the fire occurred due to the U.S. fire. On November 7, 2011, and the instant main points showed that there was a problem in electric facilities, such as the operation of a blocker system for the concurrent use of electric power failure, load load, and fall, but Defendant X, X,Y, and W did not take any measures such as investigating, checking, or supplementing the cause thereof.

G) Defendant X, X,Y, and W kept only 10 emergency lights among the 26 main rooms of this case. Of them, five of them did not have a sound guidance. The above portable emergency lights, etc. were not kept in the 19th and 25th of the attached drawings of the deceased. Moreover, since they did not have any warning sounding at the time of the instant fire, there was an increase in the death on the wind where customers in the said main room are aware of the fact of the fire, the said Defendants did not properly manage the emergency alarm system so that they can cause an emergency warning by automatically detecting the smoke and heat, etc., and on the ground that customers under the influence of ordinary breadles were able to wear an emergency bell and interfere with their business, they did not frequently install the emergency alarm system in the right side of the camera, other than the emergency alarm system (e.g., the emergency alarm system).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry and video of Gap evidence 18 through 29 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2) Determination

According to the above facts, Defendant 2, X, Y, and W, who are the joint operators of the main points of this case, and the occupants/managers/managers of the main points of this case, caused the death of the deceased by negligence, such as installing and managing fire safety facilities and evacuation facilities that could minimize human damage if a fire occurs within the main points of this case, inspecting electric facilities, etc. inside the main points of this case, and removing the cause of the fire, and thoroughly educating the employees of the methods of responding to the fire, etc., thereby protecting them from the emergency situations such as fire, although they have the duty of care to protect them from the emergency situations such as fire, they are obliged to arbitrarily close the main points of this case with the purpose of increasing their operating revenues, or neglecting their functions, and neglecting the inspection of electric facilities, and failing to properly install and manage fire-related facilities, such as portable emergency lights, video sound circuit, etc., and failing to provide safety education to their employees, and thus, the Plaintiffs are liable for damages under Articles 70(1) and 75(1)7(7) of the Civil Act.

B. Whether Defendant T or U is liable for damages

1) The plaintiffs' assertion

Defendant T and U, as the owner of the instant building, was responsible for the maintenance and management of the fire-fighting facilities, was negligent in finding that Defendant W, X,Y, and W illegally remodeled the 2,3 emergency exits of the instant main points. Moreover, MM, an employee of the said Defendants, was not properly discovered and managed the defects of the emergency exit, portable safety lighting lights, video sound breaker, etc. as prescribed by the fire-fighting system laws and regulations, and was negligent in failing to properly detect and manage the fire-fighting safety education and training for employees, etc., and accordingly, Defendant T and U asserted that, pursuant to Article 750 or 756 of the Civil Act, the Plaintiffs are liable for damages incurred by the instant fire.

(ii) the facts of recognition

A) The instant building is used for the purpose of neighborhood living facilities (general restaurants) prescribed in subparagraph 2 of attached Table 2 and amusement facilities prescribed in subparagraph 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Fire-Fighting Station Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23272, Oct. 28, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 24100, Sept. 14, 2012; Presidential Decree No. 24100) and amusement facilities prescribed in subparagraph 2 of attached Table 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Fire-Fighting System Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2410, Sept. 14, 2012; the instant building is a multi-purpose building prescribed in subparagraph 30 of attached Table 2; it constitutes a "specific fire-fighting object" pursuant to Article 5 of the above Enforcement Decree; Article 20(2) of the Fire-Fighting System Act; Article 22(1)3 (b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Fire-Fighting System Act; and Article 12(1)2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public-Use Facilities Act (hereinafter referred to be referred to as the “Public-Use establishments”).

B) From March 2003, MM was employed by Defendant T and U as the managing director of the instant building and performed overall building management duties. Around June 2003, the Korea Fire Safety Association obtained a fire safety certificate from the said Defendants and appointed as fire safety controller from the said Defendants and was concurrently engaged in such duties. Defendant T, U, and MM, as the owner or fire safety controller of the instant building, a specific fire-fighting object, bears the duty to install, maintain, and manage the fire-fighting systems, etc. of the instant building in accordance with the fire safety standards publicly notified by the Administrator of the National Emergency Management Agency, and received four hours’ education from the Korea Fire Safety Association once a year to properly perform the said duties.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 18-3 and 16-16, the purport of the whole pleadings

3) Determination

A) Article 2 subparag. 1 and 2 of the Fire-Fighting Act defines fire-fighting systems as fire-fighting systems, fire-fighting systems and emergency exit and other fire-fighting-related facilities prescribed by the Presidential Decree as fire-fighting equipment, etc.; Article 9 of the Act provides that fire-fighting systems and other facilities prescribed by the Presidential Decree as prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall be installed, maintained, and managed in accordance with the fire safety standards determined and publicly notified by the Administrator of the Fire-Fighting Agency, taking into account the size and purpose of use of specific fire-fighting objects, the number of accommodation, etc. as prescribed by the Presidential Decree; and Article 20(6) and Article 22 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fire-Fighting Facilities Act and Article 26 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fire-Fighting Facilities Act provide that persons related to specific fire-fighting objects whose regular work or resident exceeds 10 persons shall conduct training, such as fire extinguishing, notification, escape, etc., and education necessary for fire-fighting management, and in this case, escape training shall include persons who have access to the fire-fighting objects.

Meanwhile, under Article 2 (1) 1 of the Public Use Establishments Act, the term "business prescribed by Presidential Decree as being highly likely to cause damage to life, body, or property at the time of occurrence of a disaster, such as fire, etc." shall take precedence over other Acts with respect to the safety control of publicly-used establishments, and the duty to install and maintain evacuation routes and other safety facilities (hereinafter referred to as "safety facilities, etc.") inside the publicly-used establishments in accordance with the standards prescribed by Presidential Decree (Article 9) and Articles 50 through 53 of the Building Act, which are installed in the place of business to prevent fire, fire prevention facilities (hereinafter referred to as "non-permanent fire prevention facilities") and the installation of portable fire prevention facilities (hereinafter referred to as "non-permanent fire prevention facilities"), and the duty to maintain the safety control of publicly-used establishments and non-permanent fire prevention facilities (hereinafter referred to as "non-permanent fire prevention facilities"), such as fire-fighting facilities and non-permanent fire prevention facilities, etc. installed in accordance with Article 10 (1) 2 of the Fire-Fighting Facilities Act.

B) The instant building in relation to the Fire-Fighting Facility Act and the Multi-Use Facility Act shall have various fire-fighting systems and emergency exits and fire-fighting-fighting-related facilities that meet the disaster safety standards specifically stipulated in the fire-fighting facility statutes, i.e., fire-fighting systems, etc., the instant main points shall have the “safety facilities, etc., such as emergency lighting, such as portable emergency lighting, emergency bells, emergency bell equipment, emergency broadcasting equipment, emergency equipment, and video sound breaker meeting the installation standards of the Ministry of Public Administration and Security within the place of business by themselves.”

Therefore, MM, an employee of Defendant T and U, bears the duty to maintain and manage the "fire-fighting systems, etc., including various fire-fighting facilities, escape facilities, etc. installed in the instant building in accordance with the Fire-Fighting Systems Act, as fire safety controller of the instant building, appointed pursuant to Article 20 (2) of the Fire-Fighting Systems Act, in compliance with the disaster safety standards publicly announced by the Administrator of the National Emergency Management Agency. However, considering that the Public-Use Facilities Act takes precedence over the Fire-Fighting Facilities Act, it does not bear the duty to maintain and manage the "safety facilities, etc., installed additionally in accordance with the Public-Use Facilities Act, etc.," which is the main place of the instant building, and the maintenance, management, and regular inspection of the above "safety facilities, etc.

C) Determination on emergency exit part

First, we examine the second and third emergency parts.

As seen earlier, the 3 emergency district is established by the recommendation of the Busan Jindo Fire Station in the state that there is no duty to install the 3 emergency district. The 2 emergency district is established in accordance with the Public Use Establishments Act and its subordinate statutes. As such, the 3 emergency district only constitutes safety facilities, etc. which the owner of the 2 and 3 non-standing district of this case must maintain, manage, and conduct regular inspections in accordance with the Public Use Establishments Act and its subordinate statutes, and it does not constitute "fire-fighting systems, etc." as prescribed by the fire-fighting systems laws and regulations. Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion on the premise that the 2 and 3

D) Portable emergency lights.

Next, we examine the part of portable emergency lighting.

According to the attached Table 4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Fire-Fighting Facilities Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23272, Oct. 28, 2011); Article 3(2) and (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Fire-Fighting Facilities Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22003, Jan. 27, 2010) of the Fire-Fighting Facilities Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22003, Jan. 27, 2010), a portable emergency lighting, etc. shall be installed in a specific fire-fighting object, among the specific fire-fighting objects, at least 10 persons accommodation facilities, department stores, department stores, discount stores, shopping centers, underground shopping centers, movie theaters, etc.; however, since there are no specific provisions concerning portable emergency lighting, etc. with respect to amusement facilities such as the main points in this case, it cannot be deemed that portable emergency lighting constitutes "fire-fighting facilities, etc. prescribed by the Fire-Fighting Facilities Act" as mentioned above.

E) Determination on the part of video sound circuit circuit

Next, we examine the part of video sound blocking device.

The former Fire-Fighting Facility Act and subordinate statutes provide for fire-fighting equipment, alarming equipment, escape equipment, fire-fighting water equipment, and fire-fighting activity equipment and does not include image and sound breaker in detail. However, the former Fire-Fighting Facility Act and subordinate statutes provide for image and sound breaker as part of other safety facilities separate from fire-fighting equipment, escape equipment, alarm equipment, and fire-fighting equipment. Thus, video sound breaker is installed in accordance with the Public Use Facility Act and subordinate statutes, and it does not constitute "fire-fighting system, etc." under the Fire-Fighting Facility Act and subordinate statutes. Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion on the premise that the above facility falls under the above fire-fighting facility, etc

F) Furthermore, in full view of the facts as seen earlier and the following circumstances recognized by the aforementioned evidence with respect to the second and third emergency exit, portable emergency illumination, and image sound breaker, etc., the duty of care to require the owners of business to take active measures, such as demanding the correction of defects, in advance, shall not be deemed to have been acknowledged, in order to prevent the occurrence of a fire by predicting that an emergency exit, portable emergency illumination, and video sound breaker installed only in accordance with the Public Use Establishments Act within the publicly used establishment, and the alarm equipment or escape equipment such as video sound breaker, etc., or by thoroughly maintaining and managing “direct.”

(1) The second emergency district and the third emergency district do not correspond to "fire-fighting systems, etc. to be maintained and managed by fire-fighting managers" as stipulated in the Fire-Fighting Systems Act, and in particular, the third emergency district are established by the invitation of the competent fire station in spite of the absence of the duty of installation under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and the fact that the second emergency district, portable emergency lighting, and video sound breaker are installed in accordance with the provisions of publicly-used establishment Acts and subordinate statutes

② In inspecting fire-related facilities within the jurisdiction including the instant main point by Busan Fire Station, the fire officers employed by the Busan Fire Station did not inspect the maintenance and management status of the emergency exit installed in the publicly-used establishment in comparison with daily drawings due to time and human limitations and did not mainly depend on the explanation of the owner of the business or the person responsible for fire safety control. For that reason, TT, who is the fire officer of the Busan Fire Station, did not grasp the situation of the instant main point being remodeled only once and the second empty district was remodeled entirely. In addition, there was a difference between the third emergency exit and three emergency exit installed at the instant main points at the time of changing the purpose of use.

③ MM does not appear to have properly confirmed whether an internal structure was changed at the time of the change into the use of the 3th floor of the instant building into an entertainment drinking house, and the emergency exit installed pursuant to the Public-Use Facilities Act has been maintained and maintained in its original form, or whether the change was made at will by the owners of the instant building.

(4) According to Articles 9 and 25 of the Public Use Facilities Act, where part of evacuation facilities, such as an emergency exit or escape passage, installed inside a public use facility, has been closed, modified or remodeled pursuant to the said Act and its subordinate statutes, the competent fire station shall provide that the fire station shall not demand correction to the owner of the public use facility only, or shall not be held responsible for the violation, and shall not be held responsible for the interest in the fire safety of a building in which the public use facility is located, or any related person.

(5) On the other hand, even if the owner or related person of all the objects of fire safety, such as MM, finds out a violation of the standards prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Public Administration and Security with respect to safety facilities, including emergency exits installed in the publicly-used establishment, and demands the owner or related person of the publicly-used establishment to correct such violation, there is no way to enforce it if the owner or related person fails to comply with it, and there is no effective sanctions against rejection.

G) Determination on the part of the fire training and education

Finally, it is insufficient to view that Defendant T, U, and MM violated its duty of care with respect to fire training or fire-fighting education only by examining the fire training and education portion 2. From 20 p.m., the following circumstances acknowledged by Gap evidence 18-3, Eul evidence 9 as a whole, namely, ① MM goes at work 7:30 p.m. to conduct internal inspection for fire prevention, inspection of fire-related facilities, and maintenance, etc. for 20 p.m., only 1 p. 20 p.m. annually, it was found that the above 20 p.m. fire-fighting team 20 p.m. to conduct safety management, including the above 20 p.m. fire-fighting team 20 p.m., Defendant’s duty of care with respect to fire-fighting safety management, and 10 p.m., Defendant’s duty of care with respect to fire-fighting safety management.

H) Whether the Defendant T or U is liable as the owner

Although the above defendants are owners of the building of this case, with regard to the main owner of this case, which is part of the building of this case, and the lessee arbitrarily remodeled the second and third emergency exits inside the main owner, the second and third emergency districts are not included in the fire-fighting facilities stipulated by the Fire-Fighting Facilities Act, and thus, they are not responsible for maintaining and managing it. Thus, the above defendants' general illegal acts under Article 750 of the Civil Act shall not be recognized.

I) Sub-decision

Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion that the defendant T or U is liable for damages under Article 750 or 756 of the Civil Code is without merit.

C. Whether Defendant Busan Metropolitan City is liable for damages

1) Facts of recognition

A) After obtaining permission to change the purpose of use of the instant building as an entertainment drinking house, the Busan Fire-Fighting Station conducted a fire-fighting inspection on the instant building with two fire-fighting officers each over three times on November 13, 2009; October 15, 201; and August 9, 2011. The fire-fighting officers conducted a fire-fighting inspection on the instant building by taking into account the characteristics of the entertainment drinking house business, on the grounds that there are many fire-fighting inspectors who are subject to fire-fighting inspection, but lack of inspectors and inconvenience of customers in light of the characteristics of the entertainment drinking house business. The fire-fighting department visited the instant building without possessing various authorized and permitted documents or drawings related to the instant building and checked only the reception Ban of automated fire detection facilities, fire-fighting pumps, etc., and conducted a fire-fighting inspection on the basis of taking into account whether fundamental fire-fighting systems, such as fire-fighting machines, and emergency exits, etc., including a sample check and several rooms only.

B) As a result, the above fire officers confirmed only the defect of valves in the main pumps inhaled by the indoor fire hydrants at the fire-fighting inspection on October 15, 201, and only the defect in the front source of the receiver and the receiver at the fire-fighting inspection on August 9, 2011, and did not discover the closure of the second and third emergency exit.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 20, Gap evidence 23 through 29, Eul evidence 8 through 10, Eul evidence 15 to 18, Eul evidence 40, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2) Determination

A) Whether there was negligence of fire officers belonging to the Busan Fire Fighting Division on the instant fire

The Fire-Fighting Systems Act provides for specific fire-fighting objects, publicly-used establishments, and fire-fighting objects subject to an order to repair, and imposes an obligation on their manager to manage and supervise them (Articles 4, 5, 9, and 20, etc. of the Fire-Fighting Systems Act). The main point of this case is an entertainment drinking house that constitutes a specific fire-fighting object, multiple-use establishments, or a fire-fighting object subject to an order to repair, as prescribed by the Fire-Fighting Systems Act, and fire officers belonging to the Busan Jin Fire-Fighting Station under the direction and supervision of the head of Busan Fire-Fighting Station shall have documents and equipment necessary to conduct the fire-fighting inspection of the building in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and have the owner of the building or the interests of the fire-fighting department in the presence of the building or the owner of the fire-fighting department. The fire-fighting officers belonging to the Busan Fire-Fighting Station under the direction and supervision of the fire-fighting system Act must take measures to prevent a fire, such as issuing corrective order, and to provide guidance and measures to minimize damage to human life, etc.

Fire officers belonging to the Busan Fire Station shall visit the above building without any drawing in violation of the duty of care, and visit fire extinguisherss and emergency exit facilities and escape facilities, etc., and shall be limited to the formal inspection centered on the appearance such as the landing inspection and sampling inspection, etc., and the main points of this case were at the time of permission for the alteration of use as entertainment taverns, and the escape guidance map attached to each room of the above main points was also marked as to the main points of this case, and in the case of the third emergency district, the closure of the second and third emergency exit was not discovered, and thus, the fire officers belonging to the Busan Fire Station did not take necessary measures such as ordering repair. The negligence is recognized for fire officers belonging to the Busan Fire Station.

Defendant Busan Metropolitan City asserts that the fire-fighting test samples are large and lack of inspectors, and it is impossible to conduct a daily precise inspection of each room of the building of this case. The fire-fighting officers belonging to the Busan Metropolitan City Fire-Fighting Station are conducting a fire-fighting inspection by doing their best under poor conditions, and thus they are not at fault to the above fire-fighting officers. However, if there is a lack of human resources, it cannot be a reason for exemption from liability because there is a lack of human resources and lack of working conditions. Thus, this part of this part of the allegation by Defendant Busan Metropolitan City cannot be accepted.

B) Whether there exists a causal relationship between the negligence of fire officers belonging to the Busan Fire Station on the instant fire and the plaintiffs' damages

피고 부산광역시는, 이 사건 화재는 전적으로 이 사건 주점의 업주들 및 소유자들의 관리소홀 때문에 발생한 것이고, 나아가 이 사건 화재 당시 24번방 문을 열면서 24번방 앞 통로를 시작으로 연기가 급속하게 퍼진 결과 앞뒤 분간이 되지 않을 정도로 깜깜하여서 제3비상구 유도등을 관측할 수가 없는 상태였으므로 망인들이 제3비상구를 활용할 수 없었고, 제2비상구는 발화지점에 마주하여 위치하고 있어서 그 용도가 변경되었는지 여부와 무관하게 제2출입구 쪽으로 동선을 선택한 사람은 없었으므로, 부산진소방서 공무원들의 제2, 3비상구에 대한 관리상의 잘못과 이 사건 사고 사이에는 인과관계가 없다고 다툰다.

In light of the fact that the attached room was connected to the third emergency exit, the deceased could easily recognize that the above attached room was a place where fire can be evacuated in the event of a fire. If the third emergency exit was maintained at an open condition and the contact leg was properly provided, it would have attempted to escape through the third emergency exit rather than through the third emergency exit in the distance of 7 and 8 for escape. The second emergency exit does not have a door before the second emergency exit, so it would be easy for the deceased to easily identify the emergency exit inside the main room, and if there were no things in the passage via the second emergency exit, it would have been possible for the deceased to promptly maintain the defendant's body's life and emergency exit through the second emergency exit or through the second emergency exit, it would have been possible for the deceased to promptly take into account the defendant's act and the second emergency exit to maintain the fire officer's life and the second emergency exit through the second emergency exit, and it would also be possible for the deceased to promptly take into account the defendant's act and the second emergency exit of 200 emergency exit.

C) Accordingly, Defendant Busan Metropolitan City is an employer of fire officers under its jurisdiction and is responsible for compensating the Plaintiffs, who are the deceased and their bereaved family members, due to the instant fire that occurred in violation of the Fire-Fighting Systems Act and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes in performing their duties under Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act.

4. Scope of liability for damages

A. Limitation on liability

The Defendants asserts that, even if the Defendants’ responsibility is recognized, considerable liability should be limited, considering the poor working environment of fire officers belonging to Busan Metropolitan City, and the deceased’s failure to take such care despite having been informed of the emergency exit, and the situation judgment was not well-founded.

However, even if the poor working conditions of fire officers are recognized, in the case of joint tort, even though the court's negligence offsets the victim's negligence on the part of the victim, even if the ratio of negligence to each joint tortfeasor differs from each other, the victim's negligence shall not be individually assessed, but shall be assessed as a whole by negligence for all of the joint tortfeasors (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da32999, Jun. 14, 2007). The poor working environment of fire officers is only an element to consider when determining internal liability relationship among the joint tortfeasors, and in the case of claiming damages against the whole joint tortfeasors, the defendants' liability limitation assertion on this ground is without merit.

However, the main point of this case is a closed place, and the internal passage structure is complicated in the form of "non", and each room includes a shelter route and a shelter method, etc. In addition, the customer who has access to such a place has a duty of care to properly cope with emergency situations if an emergency situation occurs after being informed of the location and method of evacuation in advance. Therefore, taking this into account, the defendants' responsibility is limited to 90%.

B. Scope of responsibility related to the network DD

(i) lost earnings;

The net income loss caused by the fire of this case in the network DD shall be calculated at the present price at the time of the fire of this case (hereinafter the same shall apply to the calculation of the net income of other deceaseds) in accordance with the Hofman Identification Calculation Act, which deducts intermediary interest at the rate of 5/12 per month, based on the following facts and the content of the evaluation as follows:

(A) the facts of recognition and evaluation;

Gender: Males

Date of birth: September 26, 198

Age: 23 years old and 7 months old at the time of the instant fire;

- A term lease: 55 years of age, which was the monetary evaluation and retirement age for operating capacity for 55.26 years, DD continued to work for the time of the instant fire on April 5, 201, when it entered into a term-based company (hereinafter referred to as "termly modified smuggling") and died, and received a total of 5,350,730 won (=1,703,040 won + 1,932,250 won + 1,715,440 won + 1,783,576 won (= 350,350,730 won: 3 months: 60 months: 60 years of age, 60, 555 years of age), 26 days of average monthly income x 76 days of average wage x 36 days of average wage x 76 days of average wage x 26 days of average wage x 76 days of average wage x 26 days of average wage x 16 days of two hundred six days of month.

- Cost of living: 1/3 of revenues;

Maximum working age: The retirement age of net DD is the last day of the year in which he/she reaches 55 years of age, and thereafter the maximum working age is until he/she reaches 60 years of age, and works every 22 days of a month

B)Calculation

- From May 5, 2012 to December 31, 2043 379 x 2/3 x 227.0860 x 270,016,759 - 1,63,376 x 2/3 from January 1, 204 to September 25, 2048 - 57 months from September 25, 204 x 2/3X12.9140 [i.e., 240, 227.060 - 2227.0860 - 436 months from September 25, 204 - 204 - 204 - 305 - 505 - 2405 -

- Total: 284,337,317 won (=270,016,759 won + 14,320,558 won)

(ii)an actual retirement allowance;

The network D entered the company on April 5, 201. The retirement allowance to be received at the time of the fire of this case is calculated as the current price at the time of the fire of this case, and the retirement allowance at the time of the fire of this case is deducted as 20,656,54 won (=22,58,751 won - 1,932,207 won) (i.e., when a worker continues to work and retires for more than one year according to the detailed rules of employment under the detailed rules of employment, the amount equivalent to the "30-day average wage" shall be deemed as 1,783,576 won as seen earlier. The calculation details of the daily retirement allowance shall be the same as the written statement in the daily retirement allowance calculation table in the attached Form).

3) Limitation on liability

274,494,474 won = (284,337,317 won + 20,656,54 won) x 0.9)

4) Consolation money

A) Reasons for taking into account: The deceased’s age, family relation, background of death, and other various circumstances shown in the pleadings of this case.

(B) the determined amount;

Net D: 50,000,000 won, Plaintiff A, and B respectively, and Plaintiff L: 3,000,000 won, and 5) Inheritance Relations

A) Amount subject to inheritance: 324,494,474 won (=274,494,474 won + 50,000,000 won) heir: Plaintiff A and B, who are the parents of network D, inherit one half each.

C)Calculation

Plaintiff A and B respectively 172,247,237 won = 162,247,237 won (=324,494,474 won): 2) + 10,000,000 won)

- Plaintiff L: 3,000,000 won

(c) Scope of responsibility related to the network E-E;

(i) lost earnings;

(A) the facts of recognition and evaluation;

Gender: Males

Date of birth: January 13, 1993

Age: 19 years of age and 3 months of age at the time of the instant fire;

- A term lease: 55 years of age, which was the monetary evaluation retirement age for operating capacity in 59.15, the deceased E was employed on September 1, 2010 and worked until the time of the fire of this case. 5,390,190 won (=1,683,370 won + 1,856,480 won + 1,850 won + 1,850,340 won) received a total of 1,796,730 won (=5,390,190 won: 5,36 months) as average monthly income; 60 years of age, which was operated after 55 years of age, until the age of 50,000, the Plaintiff C also claimed the actual income during this period; however, the Plaintiff’s income during this period does not exceed 439 days after the date of the fire of this case.

Cost of living: 1/3 of income;

Maximum working age: The retirement age of the net EE is the last day of the year in which he/she reaches the age of 55, and thereafter the maximum working age is until he/she reaches the age of 60, and shall work every 22 days

B)Calculation

- 1,796,730 won X 2/3 x 240.00 = 287,476,80 won from May 5, 2012 to December 31, 2048

(ii)an actual retirement allowance;

On September 1, 2010, the network EE was employed as a full-time employee on September 1, 201. The retirement allowance to be received at the time of the instant fire shall be calculated at the present price at the time of the instant fire, and the retirement allowance at the time of the instant fire shall be KRW 21,345,751 (i.e., KRW 24,340,301 - 2,994,550) if the retirement allowance at the time of the instant fire is deducted (i.e., KRW 24,30, 301 - 2,94,550) (i.e., when a worker continues to work and retires for more than one year, the amount equivalent to the "30-day average wage" shall be deemed as KRW 1,796,730 as seen earlier. The calculation details of the daily retirement allowance shall be

3) Limitation on liability

277,940,295 won = (287,476,800 won + 21,345,751 won) x 0.9)

4) Consolation money

A) Reasons for taking into account: The deceased’s age, family relation, background of death, and other various circumstances shown in the pleadings of this case.

(B) the determined amount;

Network E: KRW 50,00,000, Plaintiff C: KRW 18,000,000 (MoN renounces inheritance and transfers its claim of consolation money to Plaintiff C), Plaintiff M, N: KRW 3,000,000, respectively.

(v) inheritance relations;

A) Amount to be inherited: 327,940,295 won (=277,940,295 won + 50,000,000 won): The plaintiff C who is the father of the network EE shall solely inherit the amount to be inherited.

C)Calculation

- Plaintiff C: 345,940,295 won (=327,940,295 won + 18,000,000 won) Plaintiff M and N: 3,000 won, respectively.

(d) the scope of net Frelated liability;

(i) lost earnings;

(A) the facts of recognition and evaluation;

Gender: Males

Date of birth: November 1, 1991

Age: 20 years old and 6 months old at the time of the instant fire;

- A term lease: The age of 55, which was the monetary evaluation and retirement age for operating capacity in 58.17, the deceased F was employed on September 6, 2010 and served until the time the fire of this case was killed. The sum of KRW 5,570,570 (=1,809,530 + 1,983,770 + KRW 1,777,270 + KRW 1,856,856 (=5,570 + KRW 5,570,570 + KRW 5,570,570) was received as monthly income, and the net income is calculated by considering it as monthly income, until the age of 55 reaches the age of 60,00,000, the maximum working age of KRW 555,000,000,000,000 for the pertinent period, but the Plaintiff D, and E also claimed for the actual income during this period.

Cost of living: 1/3 of income;

Maximum working age: The retirement age of the net FF is the last day of the year in which he/she reaches the age of 5, and thereafter the maximum working age is until he/she reaches the age of 60, and shall work every 22th day of

B)Calculation

- 1,856,856 won for 415 months from May 5, 2012 to December 31, 2046 x 2/3 x 240.00 = 297,096,960 won

(ii)an actual retirement allowance;

On September 6, 2010, the netF entered the retirement allowance to be received at the time of the fire of this case (=21,568,761 won - 3,094,760 won) when the retirement allowance at the time of the fire of this case is deducted (i.e., 24,62,761 won - 3,094,760 won) (i.e., when a worker continues to work and retires for more than one year according to the detailed rules of employment). As such, the amount equivalent to the "30-day average wage" shall be deemed as 1,856,856 won as seen earlier. The calculation details of the retirement allowance at the time of the fire of this case shall be the same as those indicated in the attached Table in the calculation table of the retirement allowance at the time of the fire of this case.

3) Limitation on liability

286,798,464 won = (297,096,960 won + 21,568,001 won) ¡¿ 0.9)

4) The reason for writing consolation money: The deceased's age, family relation, background of death, and other various circumstances shown in the argument of this case.

(B) the determined amount;

NetworkF: 50,000,000 won, Plaintiff D, and E: each of 12,000,000 won

(v) inheritance relations;

A) Amount subject to inheritance: 336,798,464 won (=286,798,464 won + 50,000,000 won) heir: Plaintiff D, the parent of net F, and E, each inheritance by 1/2

C)Calculation

원고 D, E : 각 180,399,232원{= 168,399,232원(=336,798,464 ︰ 2) + 12,000,000원}

E. Scope of responsibility relating to the NetworkCC

(i) lost earnings;

(A) the facts of recognition and evaluation;

Gender: Males

Date of birth: May 15, 1981

Age: 30 years old and 11 months old at the time of the instant fire;

- Name of term of lease: 48.51 years

- 가동능력에 대한 금전적 평가정년인 60세가 될 때까지, 매월 도시일용노동자에 해당하는 보통인부의 노임 상당액을 얻을 수 있을 것인데, 2012년 상반기 건설업 임금실태 조사보고서상 보통인부에 대한 1일 임금이 75,608원이므로, 월 가동일수를 22일로 계산하여 1,663,376 원(=75,608원 X 22일)을 월 소득으로 보아 일실수입을 산정한다. | 생계비 : 수입의 1/3

-Maximum working age: Until he/she reaches 60 years of age, and work every 22th day of a month.

B)Calculation

- 1,663,376 won in May 5, 2012 to May 14, 2041 x 2/3 x 2/654 x 238,157,074 won (tact below original) limitation on liability

214,341,366 won (=238,157,074 won x 0.9)

3) Consolation money

A) Reasons for taking into account: The deceased’s age, family relation, background of death, and other various circumstances shown in the pleadings of this case.

(B) the determined amount;

NetworkCC: 50,000,000 won, Plaintiff F, and G respectively, and Plaintiff F: 10,000,000 won, Plaintiff 0: 3,000,000 won and 4) inheritance relations

A) Amount subject to inheritance: 264,341,366 won (=214,341,366 won + 50,000,000 won) inheritor: Plaintiff F and G, the parent of the networkCC, each inheritance by one half.

C)Calculation

Plaintiff F, G: 142,170,683 won (=132,170,683 won = 264,341,366 won ¡À2) + 10,000,000 won)

Plaintiff 0: 3,000,000 won

F. Scope of liability relating to the net GG

(i) lost earnings;

(A) the facts of recognition and evaluation;

Gender: Women

Date of birth: on October 6, 1990, the remaining age of 21 years and 6 months at the time of the instant fire.

- Name of term of lease: 57.2 years

-it can obtain an amount equivalent to the daily wage of an ordinary worker corresponding to urban daily workers until he/she reaches the age of 60, which is the age limit for pecuniary evaluation of the operating capacity, and since the daily wage of an ordinary worker in the investigation report on the actual wage of construction business during the first half of 2012 is KRW 75,608, one day wage of an ordinary worker is calculated as 22 days, it shall be calculated as 1,63,376 won (=75,608 x 22 days) by counting the monthly operating number as 22 days.

- Cost of living: 1/3 of revenues;

Maximum working age: The maximum working age shall be until he/she reaches 60 years of age, and shall be worked on 22th day of each month.

B)Calculation

- 1,663,376 won x 2/3 x 240.00 = 266,140,160 won from May 5, 2012 to October 5, 205

2) Limitation on liability

239,526,144 won (=266,140,160 won x 0.9)

3) Consolation money

A) Reasons for taking into account: The deceased’s age, family relation, background of death, and other various circumstances shown in the pleadings of this case.

(B) the determined amount;

GG: 50,000,000 won, Plaintiff H and J, respectively, KRW 9,000,000 for Plaintiff P and Q: KRW 3,000,000 for each of them

(iv) inheritance relations;

A) Amount subject to inheritance: 289,526,144 won (=239,526,144 won + 50,000,000 won) heir: Plaintiff H and J, the parent of the net GG, each inheritance by one half.

C)Calculation

Plaintiff H and J: 153,763,072 won (=144,763,072 won (=289,526,144 won) +9,00,000 won)

Plaintiff P and Q: 3,000,000 won

G. Scope of net H-related liabilities

(i) lost earnings;

(A) the facts of recognition and evaluation;

Gender: Women

Date of birth: December 2, 1987

Age: 24 years old and 5 months old at the time of the instant fire;

- Name of term of lease: 54.29

- Until the age of 60, the monthly retirement age for operation skills reaches the age of 60, an amount equivalent to the daily wage of an ordinary worker. Since one day wage for an ordinary worker in the upper half of 2012 is KRW 75,608, daily wage investigation report, the number of monthly working days is calculated as 22 days and calculated as 1,63,376 won (i.e., 75,608 x 22 days) monthly income. Plaintiff K claims that, at the trial, the network H has a certificate of qualification as a construction system technician, and that, before entering a university, it can not be calculated as the basis for the total number of monthly working income of the Plaintiff’s employees in the manufacturing industry, since it was no longer employed for four years and three years before entering a university or college, it cannot be calculated as the basis for the total number of monthly working income of the Plaintiff workers in the manufacturing industry.

- Cost of living: 1/3 of revenues;

Maximum working age: The maximum working age shall be until he/she reaches 60 years of age, and shall be worked on 22th day of each month.

B)Calculation

- 1,663,376 x 2/3 x 240.00 = 266,140,160 won from May 5, 2012 to December 1, 2047

2) Limitation on liability

239,526,144 won (=266,140,160 won X 0.9)

3) Consolation money

A) Reasons for taking into account: The deceased’s age, family relation, background of death, and other various circumstances shown in the pleadings of this case.

(B) the determined amount;

GH : 50,000,000 won for Plaintiff K: 24,000,000 won for 24,000

(iv) inheritance relations;

(a) Amount to be inherited: 289,526,144 won (=239,526,144 won + 50,000,000 won) inheritor: K, the mother of the deceased H, shall solely inherit the amount to be inherited;

C)Calculation

Plaintiff K: 313,526,144 won (=289,526,144 won + 24,00,000 won) / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute; Gap evidence 1 through 6; Gap evidence 12 through 15; the purport of the whole pleadings;

(h) Sub-determination

Therefore, Defendant Busan Metropolitan City, WT, X, Y, and W. (1) up to 172,247, 200, 340, 295, 340, 400, 500, 500, 180, 360, 306, 40, 200, 500, 50, 60, 500 to 30, 50, 206, 30, 50, 50, 60, 50, 60, 30, 50, 60, 50, 60, 60, 300, 306, 50, 60, 506, 50, 205, 306, 50, 50, 200, 3,000, 15, 313, 414, 54, and 5.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant Busan Metropolitan City, W, X, Y, and W are accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims against the defendant T, U are dismissed for reasons without merit. The part against the defendant Busan Metropolitan City, W, X, X, Y, G, H, J, and the part against the plaintiff A, B, C, D, D, E, F, G, H, H, K, and the part against the defendant T and U are inappropriate for reasons different from this. Thus, the defendant Busan Metropolitan City, W, C, D, E, F, G, H, H, K, the defendant Busan Metropolitan City, W, X, X, X, and W were partially appealed, and the appeal against the plaintiff, the plaintiff, the plaintiff, the defendant T, the defendant T, and the remainder of the appeal against the defendant T and U are dismissed for reasons and all of the appeal against the plaintiff, the plaintiff, the plaintiff, the plaintiff, the defendant T and the remaining part against the defendant T and the defendant T are all dismissed.

The presiding judge, judge and assistant judge;

Judges, Clinicals

Judges shall be given a leave of absence in whose name and seal are not affixed.

(1) Article 36 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act is a floor used for a bar business among amusement facilities, on which the total floor area of the living room on that floor is not less than 300 square meters;

In person, outdoor escape stairs leading to the ground from the floor should be separately installed, and the time of the former Public Use Establishments Act

The current Enforcement Decree of the Multi-Use Facility Act [Attachment I] of the Enforcement Decree of the Multi-Use Facility Act, which was newly established without a separate definition of the emergency exit, shall be non-high 2.

In addition to the main entrance and the main entrance, escape from the inside of the place of emergency, such as a fire, to the ground rooftop or other safe place;

In order to make it possible, it is defined as "the entrance connected to the outdoor escape stairs or balcony pursuant to the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act".

2) According to Article 2 of the Framework Act on Fire Services, “interested persons” refers to the owner, manager, or occupant of a fire-fighting object.

3) Before the Government Organization Act was amended on March 23, 2013, the Ministry of Public Administration and Security Ordinance

(iv) Article 3 (Transitional Measures following Change in Specific Fire-Fighting Objects);

(2) Where fire-fighting systems, etc. are installed lawfully in a specific fire-fighting object pursuant to attached Table 4 at the time this Decree enters into force, the provisions of attached Table 4

(2) A fire-fighting system, etc. shall be deemed to be installed lawfully.