A. Whether a corrective order to immediately remove the danger of an existing accident under the Urban Gas Business Act can be refused on the grounds of a non-economic and unreasonable reason in the long term (negative)

(b) A case recognizing the occupational negligence of a safety manager of urban gas supply business with respect to urban gas explosion accidents;

A. If corrective orders with respect to the instant urban gas manufacturing facilities and supply facilities are to eliminate the risk of the occurrence of an accident resulting from the supply of urban gas and are related to the matters to be urgently corrected and it is not impossible to immediately correct them, it is more economical and reasonable to gradually implement such corrective orders by means of the relocation of the factory or the replacement of pipes, and even if reasonable, such circumstance alone does not necessarily lead to grounds for refusing such corrective orders.

(b) A case recognizing the occupational negligence of a safety manager of urban gas supply business with respect to urban gas explosion accidents;

(a) Article 27 (2) of the Urban Gas Business Act;

Defendant 1 and four others

Defendants

Attorneys Ha-soo et al.

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 85No6224 decided Jun. 23, 198

All appeals are dismissed.

As to the Grounds of Appeal:

1. The court below's order to correct urban gas manufacturing facilities and supply facilities of this case does not necessarily relate to the matters to be corrected urgently and promptly, and it is not impossible to correct immediately. Thus, in the long term, even though the above matters are more economical and reasonable to be implemented by the method of relocation of factories or replacement of pipes, it is proper to determine that the above corrective order cannot be a ground for refusing the above corrective order from the method of immediate removal of the danger of existing accidents, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as a theory of lawsuit, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles. Further, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the reasoning that the court below adjusted the maximum transmitting pressure of the pressure apparatus of this case to 1.7 key, while considering the safety of gas supply, and that the Urban Gas Business Act separately demands the pressure alarm system other than the temperature system, the act of installing the pressure alarm system of this case cannot avoid the violation of Article 51 subparagraph 4 of the Urban Gas Business Act.

2. According to the records, gas explosion of this case is not possible to supply gas (the gas pressure of this case was broken to the control signal transmission pipe of the voltage, and the gas pressure of this case was emitted to 2.8 km above that of the usual control signal pipe, and it is not possible to connect the connection pipe with the high pressure pipe of the on-site area with the high pressure pipe of the intersection (the connection pipe between the high pressure pipe and the low pressure pipe can not be safe, or the initial outlet of the urban gas business, that is, it is not possible to supply gas (low pressure) to the lower pressure pipe to the lower pressure pipe of the gas station, and it is not possible to connect it to the lower pressure pipe of the gas station to the lower pressure pipe of the gas station because it was not possible to supply gas (the connection between the high pressure pipe and the high pressure pipe of the gas station and the high pressure pipe of the gas station to the lower pressure pipe of the gas station because it was found that the connection pipe of the accident and the high pressure pipe of the high pressure pipe were installed to the lower pressure pipe of the gas station.

However, urban gas supply business is a business that is likely to cause serious harm to many people's body and property through a wide range of area due to inflammable and explosive causes, and is responsible for safety of such business (excluding Defendant 1; hereinafter the same shall apply). In particular, as determined by the court below, the Defendants, who are responsible for compliance with the basic matters for the prevention of safety accidents, such as the safety and proper maintenance of gas pressure, should exercise full power to observe the basic matters for the prevention of safety accidents, such as the installation of pipelines. In particular, as determined by the court below, those employees of the Seoul City water station, who are not experts of the gas supply center of this case, were the facility construction of the gas station of this case, and the pipeline network of this case was not inaccurate and difficult to believe. Since the piping system of this case was 10 years or more, there were many circumstances to suspect the safety of pipelines, such as poor water leakage accidents, and these circumstances were hard to find out the safety of the Seoul gas pipeline system as well as the safety of the Seoul gas pipeline.

In the end, the gas explosion accident of this case occurred by the negligence of the defendants who failed to fulfill the above duty of care. Therefore, the judgment below to the same purport is correct, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the negligence, occupational negligence, and causation, such as the theory of lawsuit. There is no ground for appeal.

3. The defendants' appeals are all dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)