Where a direct occupant who is the lessee of a structure causes damage due to a defect in the installation or preservation of a structure, the responsibility of the owner.

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 be liable for damages first, and the possessor of the structure shall be liable for damages secondly only if he/she fails to exercise due care necessary for the prevention of damage. However, in cases where the possessor of the structure, who is the lessee of the structure, or a person deemed to be in the same position, suffers damage due to a defect in the installation or preservation of the structure, the owner is liable for damages. In such cases, even if the victim was negligent in the preservation of the structure, it is only the reason for offsetting negligence.

Article 758 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others (Law Firm Han-sung, Attorneys Park Jae-young and 4 others, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Plaintiff 1 and 3 others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Defendant-Appellant Lee Young-woo, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na50036 delivered on July 15, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Determination on the first ground for appeal by the defendant's attorney

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 in the first place, and the possessor of the structure is liable for damages in the second place only if he did not neglect due care necessary for the prevention of damages. However, in a case where the direct possessor of the structure or a person in the same position as the lessee of the structure, who is the lessee of the structure, suffers damages due to defects in the installation or preservation of the structure, the owner is liable for damages. In this case, even if the victim was negligent in the preservation of the structure, the decision of the party members is adopted that it is merely a ground for offsetting negligence (see Supreme Court Decision 77Da246, Aug. 23, 197; Supreme Court Decision 8Da1121, Mar. 14, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 92Da31668, Feb. 9, 1993; Supreme Court Decision 92Da3168, Feb. 20, 1993).

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

The judgment of the court below as to the point that the plaintiff's theory points out (this case's carbon poisoning accident is caused by the defect in the installation or preservation of a structure owned by the defendant) is justified in light of the evidence relation as stated by the court below, and it cannot be viewed that there was an error of law by misunderstanding the rules of evidence or by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the defect in the installation or preservation of a structure, such as the theory of the lawsuit, and therefore there is no reason

3. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 3

If the facts are duly established by the court below, the judgment below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on offsetting negligence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was an error of law considering the injured party's negligence under consideration. Thus, there is

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

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)