Aju Station Co., Ltd. (Attorney Park Jong-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

A.N.BD Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Professor, Attorney Lee Jong-tae, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

September 26, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 382,767,408 won with 5% interest per annum from October 13, 2008 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that operates each factory in the building ( Address 2 omitted) owned by the Defendant in Ansan-si ( Address 2 omitted). The Defendant is a company that operates each factory in the building ( Address 2 omitted) owned by the Defendant.

B. On October 12, 2008, at around the Defendant-owned factory building, a fire occurred around the Defendant-owned factory building, and the Plaintiff’s factory building up to the Plaintiff’s building and part of the machinery located therein are on-boarded (hereinafter “instant fire”).

C. As a result of the investigation of the fire site in this case, the police and the National Institute of Scientific Investigation concluded that the fire in the lower part of the defendant's warehouse building could not be presumed to have been burned in the direction of the plaintiff's factory building, but the point and cause of combustion could not be discussed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 3-2, 6, Gap evidence 4-2, 3, 18, 19, 23, 25, 27, 30, 41, Gap evidence 10-2, 5, 6, 7, and Eul evidence 4 and 5-2, 3, 18, 19, 23, 25, 27, 30, 41, and Eul evidence 10-2, 5,

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Grounds for liability for damages

The Defendant newly constructed a building without permission in the vicinity of the Defendant’s factory building and used it as a warehouse, and the fire of this case occurred during that period. If the Defendant used the building lawfully in accordance with the related Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Building Act, the Defendant installed various fire-fighting facts and fire alarm devices, etc., and in that case, the fire of this case could have prevented smoke. Since the fire of this case occurred due to the defect in the construction and preservation of the above building, which is a structure occupied by the Defendant, and thus, the Plaintiff was damaged by the Plaintiff, the Defendant is liable for damages in accordance with Article 758 of the Civil Act. Furthermore, the Defendant’s employees were unable to report the fire for about seven minutes immediately after the occurrence of the fire of this case and caused damage due to the delayed reporting in accordance with Article 756 or 750 of the Civil Act. Accordingly, the Defendant is liable to compensate for damages extended due to delay in reporting.

B. Scope of liability for damages

원고가 의뢰한 손해사정결과에 의하면, 이 사건 화재로 인하여 불에 탄 원고 소유의 공장건물의 기계 등의 가액 합계 675,243,000원에서 잔존물의 가액 13,200,000원을 공제한 나머지 순손해는 662,043,106원(= 675,243,000원 - 13,200,000원)이다. 또한 손해사정사가 누락한 슬리터 부품 샷시, 작업대, 이동대차, 내충격 바닥재, 적치대, 에어 시프트, 냉난방기 등의 가액은 합계 24,846,000원이다.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff failed to engage in production activities for about eight months after the instant fire until the new factory building was newly constructed, and was forced to dispose of the production workers during the said eight-month period, and paid 34,239,790 won as leave benefits to them. However, the Plaintiff received 14,120,710 won from the Ministry of Labor. Ultimately, the amount of damages equivalent to the Plaintiff’s leave benefits suffered from the instant fire is KRW 20,119,080 (=34,239,790 - 14,120,710).

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 337,802,328 (=707,08,186 – KRW 324,240,778) obtained by deducting the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff from KRW 24,240,78 from the total amount of KRW 662,043,106 + 24,846,000 + 20,119,080) as damages for damages caused by defects in the installation and preservation of structures, and damages for delay.

3. Determination

As evidence that the fire of this case occurred inside a warehouse near the factory building owned by the Defendant, the result of the appraiser Nonparty 1’s appraisal that the cause of the fire of this case is due to the outbreak of a fire in the line, such as a blick light inside the building attached to the Defendant factory. However, as seen earlier, the police directly investigating the fire site and witness immediately after the occurrence of the fire of this case and the conclusion of the fire authority and the National Scientific Investigation Institute cannot be known of the outbreak point and the cause of the fire. As seen earlier, the result of the appraiser Nonparty 1’s appraisal is based on the records conducted by the police, the fire authority, and the National Scientific Investigation Institute, while it is physically impossible for the appraiser to investigate the scene immediately after about six years from the occurrence of the fire of this case. In light of this, the result of the appraiser Nonparty 1’s appraisal that is contrary to the results of the investigation at the fire site by the police, the fire-fighting authority, and the National Investigation Research Institute at the fire site cannot be trusted as it is.

In addition, Gap evidence 1, 2, evidence 3-1 through 7, evidence 4-1 through 30, evidence 41 through 44, evidence 5-1, evidence 8-1, evidence 10-1 through 9, evidence 15-1 through 4, evidence 4-1 through 40, evidence 45-1 through 47, evidence 6-1 through 6, evidence 8-2 through 33 are insufficient to recognize that the fire in this case occurred inside the defendant's factory building, and that the defendant's employees have delayed filing a report after a fire, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit to examine the remainder of the issue.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jin-chul (Presiding Judge)