Where “A” who has acquired rights and duties, such as the right and obligation, by means of a sub-ducation contract, has concluded a sub-ducation contract and transferred all rights and obligations to “B”, the possession relationship of the pits and the liability

The phrase “A” can be deemed to have occupied the pit at least indirectly, even though the “B”, who acquired the right to self-management based on the right to collect money from the mining concession holder in accordance with the virtue agreement, and was obligated to compensate for the damages incurred by the defect in the installation and preservation of the structure, as the possessor of the second-party net, if the direct occupant did not neglect his/her care necessary for the prevention of the damages.

Plaintiff 1 and five others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant Kim U-young

Defendant 1’s articles of incorporation

Seoul High Court Decision 74Na1399 delivered on December 27, 1974

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

First, we examine the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 3.

The court below determined that the mining right holder of the mining area of this case is the non-party 1, the mining right holder of the mining area of this case is the non-party 1, the mining right holder of the non-party 1, and the defendant acquired the right to collect coal in another mine other than the pit of this case and its incidental personnel rights, and the above non-party 1 bears the duty of accident compensation, etc., and continued until January 16, 1973 at the time of the accident, on the premise that the above non-party 2 directly occupied the pit of this case and transferred all of the above rights and obligations with regard to the pit of this case to the same non-party by concluding a sub-party 2 as of January 1, 1973, the court below rejected the plaintiffs' claim for damages due to the defect in the construction and preservation of the pit of this case on the premise that the above non-party 2 was under the possession of the defendant.

However, even if the facts acknowledged by the court below are based on the above facts, it can be deemed that the defendant occupied indirectly or indirectly the pit of this case at least, and such indirect possessor is not negligent in exercising due care necessary for the prevention of damage, it shall be reasonable in light of the law of Article 758 of the Civil Code to deem that the direct possessor is liable for compensation for damage caused by defects in the installation of structures and the preservation of structures as the secondary net possessor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 73Da1077, Mar. 25, 1975).

Therefore, the court below should have judged whether or not the above non-party 2, who was a direct occupant of the accident of this case, neglected the defendant's liability for damages. However, the court below rejected the plaintiffs' claim merely because the defendant was not a direct occupant of the pit of this case without mentioning the above non-party 2's failure to properly understand the parties' claims or did not affect the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the possessor's liability for damages, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Young-young (Presiding Justice)