[1] Details of and criteria for determining the duty of care of a liquefied petroleum gas dealer who supplies gas to ordinary consumers

[2] The case holding that where a liquefied petroleum gas dealer did not confirm that the existing gas facilities have been installed extremely badly in the course of replacing the gas source to a new location, but did not take measures to check or improve it, gross negligence under the Liability for Fire Caused by Gross Negligence Act is recognized

[1] Liquefied petroleum gas has an easy character to explosion and has a high level of risk due to the serious damage caused by the explosion accident, while it is difficult for the general public to understand the possibility of leakage, etc. As such, a liquefied petroleum gas dealer who supplies gas to general consumers has a duty of care to consider measures to prevent accidents caused by gas in advance. Determination of whether a liquefied petroleum gas seller has fulfilled his/her duty of care to prevent disasters in specific cases should also take into account the provisions of the Safety Control and Business Regulation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act.

[2] The case holding that where a liquefied petroleum gas dealer, who operated a business without being appointed a safety manager, did not take measures to check or improve the existing gas facility extremely poor while replacing the gas tank into a new one, and did not take measures to check or improve it, gross negligence is recognized as to the subsequent gas explosion accident under the Liability for Fire Caused by Gross Negligence Act.

[1] Article 750 of the Civil Act, Articles 9, 14, and 29(3) of the Safety Control and Business Regulation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act / [2] Article 750 of the Civil Act, Article 750 of the Civil Act

Chang-gu et al. and two others

Han Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Han Han-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 97Na4047 delivered on February 5, 1998

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the misapprehension of the meaning of proximate causal relation or negligence, and of gross negligence under the Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by Negligence

While liquefied petroleum gas has the nature of inflammable explosion and has high level of risk due to explosion accidents, it is difficult for the general public to understand the possibility of leakage, etc., a liquefied petroleum gas dealer has a duty of care to take measures to prevent accidents by gas in advance. The Safety Control and Business Regulation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act, which stipulates matters concerning safety control, etc. of liquefied petroleum gas, provides safety inspection of facilities to users when a liquefied petroleum gas dealer supplies gas to users, and provides guidance on matters necessary for prevention of harm to users, and if it is determined as a result of the safety inspection that there is a matter to be improved among users, he/she shall suspend gas supply and report such fact to the head of the Gu without delay (Article 9 of the Act), and the supplier’s duty of care under Article 9 of the former Safety Control and Business Regulation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act is to secure safety managers’ duty of care (Article 14 of the Act, Article 8(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act and Article 9(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the non-party 1, who is engaged in the business of the sale of liquefied petroleum gas, installed the above-mentioned gas facility with the non-party 1's own negligence on May 21, 196, after the non-party 1's non-party 1's construction work, ordered the non-party 20k Kim Nam-nam to supply one gas board, and installed it with the previous gas tank. The non-party 1's non-party 1's own negligence on the non-party 1's own building and the non-party 1's own negligence on the non-party 1's own building and the non-party 2's own negligence on the non-party 1's own building and the non-party 1's own negligence on the non-party 1's own building and the non-party 1's own building's own negligence on the non-party 6's own building's non-party 1's own building's own building and other new kitchen pressure of the above 9's.

The above judgment of the court below is acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the meaning of proximate causal relation or negligence, and by misapprehending the meaning of gross negligence as prescribed by the Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by Negligence. There is no ground for appeal.

2. As to the illegality of arbitrarily determining the contractual relationship

According to the statement in Gap evidence 6-2 (Certificate of Fact of Purchase of Insurance), it is recognized that the business compensation liability insurance, the limit of compensation of which is KRW 200 million per accident against the gas-seller operated by non-party 1, is subscribed to the defendant. The arguments are without merit.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)