(영문) 광주지방법원 2021.1.29. 선고 2020나61439 판결

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 31.4 million won with 5% interest per annum from February 14, 2020 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 12% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

The reasoning for this part of this Court is as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and thus, this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is cited as it is.

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The Defendant’s vehicle constitutes a structure under Article 758 of the Civil Act. Since the instant fire occurred due to defects in the installation and maintenance of the Defendant’s vehicle, the Defendant is the F’s insurer, the owner and the owner of the Defendant’s vehicle, and is obligated to pay the amount of damages to the Plaintiff who paid the insurance money to D, the owner of the

3. Determination

A. Relevant legal principles

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 required according to its use. The burden of proof as to the existence of such defect exists to the victim. In determining whether such a structure satisfies safety requirements, the determination shall be based on whether the installer and the preservation of the structure has fulfilled the duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the risk of the structure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Da79846, Aug. 22, 2003; 2008Da61615, Feb. 11, 2010).

Furthermore, in installing and preserving a structure, it cannot be deemed that there is a defect in the installation and preservation of the structure because it did not have high level of safety to the extent of maintaining the state of completeness at all times. Thus, the degree of duty to take protective measures imposed on the installer and custodian of the structure is to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the risk of the structure (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da37652, Apr. 24, 1992).

B. Whether there is a defect in the installation and maintenance of Defendant vehicle

1) In order to recognize F’s liability for damages, which is the possessor and owner of the Defendant’s vehicle, there is a defect in the installation and maintenance of the Defendant’s vehicle. The burden of proof is the victim as seen earlier.

2) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged earlier, the aforementioned evidence, Eul evidence No. 1, and fact-finding conducted by the first instance court on the Jeju Fire Station of Jeollabuk-do, and the overall purport of the pleadings, the mere fact that the instant fire occurred inside the Defendant vehicle is difficult to recognize that the owner of the Defendant vehicle failed to perform the duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required in proportion to the risk in the possession and management of his/her vehicle, and there is no other evidence to prove that there is a defect in the installation and maintenance of the Defendant vehicle.

① The fire of this case is a fire that occurred within 40 minutes of the vehicle’s engine room after the parking of the Defendant vehicle in Jeollabuk-do, and the electrical characteristics related to the occurrence of the fire in the electrical department of the Defendant vehicle are not identified, and the cause of the fire is not identified in terms of intentional or personal characteristics, and the mechanical factors are not identified, and the cause of the fire is not identified, and the evidence considered as the source of the fire is not identified in the engine room, engine engine, and other parts.

② On April 12, 2019, the owner of the Defendant’s vehicle underwent a comprehensive inspection conducted by I on April 12, 2019. As a result of the inspection, there was no discovery of the defect and necessity of repair of the Defendant’s vehicle, and there was a fire on November 18, 2019, in which case one year has not passed since that date.

③ The owner of the Defendant vehicle parked around 56 minutes prior to the occurrence of the instant fire. At the time of parking, there was no symptoms, such as the engine failure and electrical malfunction, on the Defendant vehicle.

④ The Defendant’s vehicle does not have any tubes before the shipment.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the owner of the defendant vehicle is liable for damages under Article 758 (1) of the Civil Act on the premise that there is a defect in the installation and maintenance of the defendant vehicle is without merit without further review.

Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.