beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Of the grounds for the separate claim, the facts stated in paragraphs (a), (2), and (3) of Article 1-A (which refers to “the instant building” and “the instant fire”) among the grounds for the separate claim are deemed to have been led to confession, since the Defendant does not clearly dispute the instant fire.
2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion
A. The Defendant, as an occupant of a structure, has contracted and contracted remodeling construction for the instant building and possessed it. As such, the Defendant is liable for the instant fire as an occupant of a structure under Article 758 of the Civil Act.
B. The Defendant, who is liable for nonperformance under the contract, concluded a remodeling contract with the victim who is the owner of the instant building as to the instant building, is liable for nonperformance under the said contract.
3. Determination
A. Article 758(1) of the Civil Act within the scope of the application of the provisions on the liability of a structure provides that “When any damage is inflicted on another person due to a defect in the construction or maintenance of a structure, the possessor of the structure shall be liable for the damage. However, if the possessor fails to exercise due care necessary for the prevention of damage, the possessor shall be liable for the damage.” The legislative purport of the above provision is that the person who manages and owns the structure shall exercise due diligence for the prevention of danger; and that where the damage is incurred due to the realization of risks, he/she shall be held fair to impose liability for the damage. Therefore, the term “defect in the construction or maintenance of a structure” refers to a state in which a structure fails to meet the safety ordinarily required according to its intended use. Determination of whether the person who installs and preserves the structure has fulfilled his/her duty to take protective measures to the extent that is generally required in proportion to the danger of the structure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do1100).