[1] Duty of care of a liquefied petroleum gas dealer under Article 11 of the Safety Control and Business of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act

[2] The case holding that there is a proximate causal relation between the previous resident, director agency employee of the company, liquefied petroleum gas collective supplier's joint negligence and the gas explosion accident in a case where a gas valve was opened for the use of hot water by a new resident while a new resident was not taken measures to prevent gas leakage, since a liquefied petroleum gas collective supplier, a former resident or a new resident did not conduct safety inspection of gas facilities due to other matters despite the contact with the former resident or a new resident, and did not instruct the safety use of gas facilities, in a case where a gas valve was opened for the use of hot water by an employee of an unqualified director agency, but did not take measures to prevent gas leakage such as removal and sealing, etc.

[1] Article 11 of the Safety Control and Business of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act is deemed to impose a strict duty of care on a liquefied petroleum gas dealer in consideration of the fact that liquefied petroleum gas has a very high risk of causing damage caused by explosion accidents and that it is difficult for the general public to know about its possibility of leakage, etc. Therefore, a liquefied petroleum gas dealer who supplies gas to general consumers has a duty of care to take measures to prevent accidents caused by liquefied petroleum gas in advance.

[2] The case holding that there is a proximate causal relation between the previous resident, director agency employee of the company, liquefied petroleum gas collective supplier's joint negligence and the gas explosion accident in a case where a gas valve was opened for the use of hot water by a new resident while a new resident was not taken measures to prevent gas leakage, in a case where a liquefied petroleum gas collective supplier, a former resident or a new resident was contacted with the former resident and did not conduct safety inspection of gas facilities because of other days, and did not instruct the safety use of gas facilities even though he did not take measures to prevent gas leakage, such as the removal and sealing of gas by an employee of an unqualified director agency, but did not take measures to prevent gas leakage

[1] Article 11 of the Safety Control and Business of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act / [2] Article 11, Article 48 subparag. 3 and Article 50 subparag. 3 of the Safety Control and Business of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act, Article 172 of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 99Do5086 delivered on June 1, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 1554) Supreme Court Decision 2006Do818 Delivered on April 27, 2006, Supreme Court Decision 2006Do819 Delivered on May 12, 2006

Defendant 1 and two others

Completion Officer

Seowon Law Firm et al.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for ten months, by imprisonment for eight months, and by imprisonment for six months, respectively.

The 134 days of detention prior to the pronouncement of this judgment shall be included in the above sentence against Defendant 1.

1. The heating of explosive objects by negligence, the death by occupational negligence, the death by occupational negligence, the death by occupational negligence, and the injury by negligence;

Defendant 1 is a director agent frame employee, and Defendant 2 is a collective supplier of liquefied petroleum gas who supplies liquefied petroleum gas to the ○○ apartment located in Chungcheongbuk (detailed address omitted) (hereinafter “instant apartment”). Defendant 3 is the owner of the instant apartment No. 101 Dong-dong 1106 (hereinafter “the instant apartment”) and was residing therein.

Defendant 3, on September 26, 2008, requested Defendant 2, the head of the management office of the apartment of this case, to perform various duties, such as the settlement of gas costs, inspection of gas facilities, etc. according to directors, etc. on September 26, 2008, and requested Defendant 1, etc., who is a staff member of the dongdong Building Press presses, to remove gas bags installed in the above household, and Defendant 1 removed gas bags with his consent.

In such a case, Defendant 3, as a user of liquefied petroleum gas, was responsible for the safety management of gas using facilities, requested a gas facility construction contractor to remove gas, requested the removal of an intermediate valve connected to the pipe to Defendant 1, who is not the gas facility construction contractor, had the duty of care to prevent gas leakage due to the removal of gas due to the removal of gas dust in the event that he could not remove the intermediate valve connected to the pipe, or in the event that the intermediate valve is removed, he had the duty of care to prevent gas leakage by taking necessary measures to prevent gas leakage if the intermediate valve was removed. Defendant 1 also had the duty of care to prevent gas leakage.

Although Defendant 3, as a liquefied petroleum gas user, did not take any measures necessary for the prevention of gas leakage by leaving Defendant 1, who was not a gas facility construction contractor, to remove gas dust, and Defendant 1 removed an intermediate valve connected to the gas pipe while removing the gas dust, removed the intermediate valve connected to the gas pipe, and completed the removal work without taking measures for the prevention of gas leakage, such as blocking the gas pipe, and violated the above duty of care.

On the other hand, on September 26, 2008, Defendant 2 received contact from Nonindicted 1 to handle all the affairs related to gas due to the transfer and entry, such as the removal of gas bags from the above generation, and did not visit the above households following the following day and did not deal with the removal, etc., Defendant 2 became to contact with the victim 1 who was a new director at around 17:45 of the same month because it is not connected with the above generation because it is not connected with the gas dust.

In such a case, Defendant 2, a safety manager who has carried out the business of attaching gas bags of the apartment of this case, was at the duty of care to guide the safety of gas use by checking the gas facilities safety of the above generation, such as whether the previous residents had been immediately removed, or by allowing new residents to confirm the situation.

Although Defendant 2 did not immediately visit the above households to conduct a safety inspection of gas, and did not instruct the victim 1 to verify whether the use of gas is safe or not, thereby violating the above duty of care.

Accordingly, at around 20:45 on September 29, 2008, the victim 1 and the mother of the victim 2 (the age of 85), who had been directors to the above generation, opened the main valve of the gas measuring instrument to use hot water, and the liquefied petroleum gas supplied to the main bank through the main valve, was leaked into the house through the gas pipe through which the gas pipe does not take a negative measure, and it was explosiond by the flammable source where it is unknown.

The Defendants, by their negligence, explosioned gas to cause danger to human life, body, or property, and at the same time caused the said victims to die in quality by combustion, at the same time, and caused the said victims to die in quality. The victims, who were living in No. 1105, 101, 1105, and 31, of the instant apartment, suffered injury, such as spawn spawn, etc., for about four weeks of treatment.

2. Violation of the Safety Control and Business of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act (Defendant 2);

On September 26, 2008, the Defendant: (a) around September 26, 2008, at the Defendant’s passenger car going to Seoul from the Chungcheongnambuk-gun to Seoul; (b) from Nonindicted 1, the head of the apartment management office of this case, Defendant 3 was contacted by Nonindicted 1, the resident of the said household on September 27, 2008, who was the director of the said apartment management office, and (c) the new resident victim 1, who was the victim, was in contact

In such cases, the defendant, who is a collective supplier of liquefied petroleum gas, did not comply with the safety inspection of liquefied petroleum gas facilities of the above household and provide guidance on matters necessary to prevent harm to consumers for the purpose of the defendant 3 or the victim 1.

1. Defendant 1’s legal statement

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 2 and 3;

1. Legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 2

1. Each statement made by Nonindicted Party 1, 3, 4, and 5 in the second trial record;

1. Each police protocol against the victim 3 and Nonindicted 6

1. A medical certificate, each written autopsy report, and each autopsy and appraisal report;

1. Requests for appraisal, reports on the results of fire appraisal, and replies;

1. Copy of LP gas collective supply contract, and copy of business registration certificate;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

(a) Defendant 1: Articles 173-2(1), 172(1), 30 (a) of the Criminal Act; Articles 267 and 30 (a) of the Criminal Act; Articles 267 and 30 (b) of the Criminal Act; Articles 266(1) and 30 (a) of the Criminal Act

(b) Defendant 2: Articles 173-2(1), 172(1), 30 (a) of the Criminal Act, Articles 268, 30 (a crime by occupational negligence, etc.) of the Criminal Act, Articles 268, 30 (a crime by occupational negligence, etc.), 268 and 30 (a crime by occupational negligence), subparagraph 3 of Article 48 and Article 11(1) of the Safety Control and Business of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act (a violation of the Safety Control and Business of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act)

(c) Defendant 3: Articles 173-2(1), 172(1), 30 (a) of the Criminal Act; Articles 267 and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 267 of the Criminal Act (the point of causing death or injury by negligence) and Articles 266(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of causing death by negligence)

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (the punishment of defendants 1 and 3 with the heavier punishment and punishment)

1. Selection of punishment;

(a) Defendant 1 and Defendant 3: Imprisonment without prison labor for the crime of heating an explosive or explosive substance by negligence;

(b) Defendant 2: Imprisonment without prison labor for the crime of occupational failure or death, and imprisonment for the crime of violation of the Safety Control and Business of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act;

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant 2: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2 and (2), and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Inclusion of days of detention in detention;

Defendant 1: Article 57 of the Criminal Act

Judgment on each argument by Defendant 2 and 3

1. Defendant 2

A. The assertion

Although Defendant 2 did not directly visit Defendant 3’s house on the date of his director to conduct a safety inspection, it could not be known that gas bags would be separated by an unqualified person, and when the victim was contacted by the victim 1 on the day of the accident to connect gas bags, Defendant 2 could not at all expect that gas leakage would occur due to gas pipes that did not operate the gas boiler to use hot water by the said victim 1, and therefore, Defendant 2 asserted that there was no predictability for the instant gas explosion accident, and therefore, negligence could not be acknowledged.

B. Facts of recognition

According to each evidence duly admitted in this case, including a copy of LPgas collective supply contract, Defendant 2’s partial statement and testimony of Nonindicted Party 1 and 5, the following facts are acknowledged.

① Defendant 2’s representative (trade name omitted) is a collective supplier of liquefied petroleum gas, and as such, concluded the instant apartment and liquefied petroleum gas collective supply contract with the instant apartment in which an explosion occurred, Defendant 2, as a safety manager of the gas facilities of the said apartment under the relevant contract and relevant laws and regulations, directly (where he/she does not do so, through the legitimate representative designated by him/her) shall perform safety management of the gas facilities of the instant apartment.

② The apartment house of this case ought to be affixed with gas bags whenever each household purchases and installs gas bags. Defendant 2 is notified that there is a household that there is a director in the apartment house of this case. Defendant 2 has been released from the existing household by directly visiting the household when both the existing household will move to a director and the new household will come to a director, and the safety management and inspection of gas facilities of such household have been conducted.

③ As above, Defendant 2 received notification to the effect that a director simply runs or has run a safety inspection of gas facilities following the installation of gas facilities, even if a director or a relative household does not specifically request the safety inspection of gas facilities following the installation of gas facilities, Defendant 2 has conducted a safety inspection of gas facilities for both household members and household members who run a director.

④ On September 26, 2008, Sept. 26, 2008, Defendant 2 received a request for safety inspection and management of gas facilities of the above household from Nonindicted 1, the director of the above apartment management office, on September 27, 2008, which was the following day from September 27, 2008, and the director of the above household on September 29, 2008.

⑤ However, Defendant 2: (a) was in Seoul at the time of the above contact; (b) asked Nonindicted 1 to check the gas meter for the settlement of gas costs; (c) did not directly visit the said household on the date Defendant 3 was the director; and (d) did not entirely check the gas safety of the said household.

6) Defendant 3 asked Defendant 1, an unqualified, to remove gas bags on the day of the director’s failure, and Defendant 1 did not take any measures to stop or seal on the spot while removing gas bags.

7) After having returned to Seoul, Defendant 2 did not directly visit the said household despite having knowledge of the fact that he had a new director at the said household on September 29, 2008 when the explosion accident of this case occurred, and did not entirely check and manage the gas facilities of the said household.

8) In the event of an explosion of this case, not only gas used for cooking but also gas supplied for hot water and heating through the same main valves and pipes, and gas gas can be leaked into the pipes of gas used for heating on the surface of the heat in order to use hot water in a structure that is supplied through the same main valves and pipes, in which gas can be separated from gas pipes used for cooking, and in which there is no measures to prevent drinking water in separate locations.

① On September 29, 2008, immediately before the explosion accident of this case occurred, Defendant 2 received a telephone call from the victim 1 to request the connection of gas bags. As such, Defendant 2 was aware that the said apartment is not connected to gas pipes or gas pipes as referred to in 1106, 101-dong apartment units.

(10) Nevertheless, Defendant 2 respondeded the victim 1 to the above currency that "I will see it, if you see it, and you will see it late at any time", and Defendant 2 asked the victim 1 to "I will be a scambling scam which is in the promotion of the development of the development of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation of the foundation.

C. Determination

In judging the violation of the duty of care and predictability as a constituent element of a crime of negligence, it shall be objectively determined based on the judgment of the prudent and deep person within the scope of the transaction to which the offender belongs. In particular, in the case of a crime of negligence of duty, the degree of general attention of ordinary persons who perform the same duties as the offender should be the standard

In addition, Article 11 of the Safety Control and Business of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act provides that when a liquefied petroleum gas filling business entity, collective supplier of liquefied petroleum gas, or liquefied petroleum gas dealer supplies liquefied petroleum gas to users, he/she shall conduct safety inspections of facilities of such users and guide them on matters necessary to prevent harm to users as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Knowledge Economy, and, as a result of safety inspections, where the user's facilities are deemed not in compliance with facility standards and technical standards under Article 27 (1), he/she shall advise the users to improve the relevant facts, and if consumers fail to improve the facilities despite their recommendation for improvement of facilities, he/she shall take measures to prevent harm to gas supply, and report the fact to the head of the Si/Gun/Gu in the area where the users are located without delay. Since liquefied petroleum gas has the nature of easily explosion and has high level of harm caused by explosion, while general consumers are deemed to impose strict duty of care on the liquefied petroleum gas dealer in consideration of leakage possibility, etc., he/she shall take measures to prevent accidents caused by liquefied petroleum gas to general consumers in advance (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do4608.

In light of the above facts and legal principles, Defendant 2 bears a high level of duty of care to enable the users to use gas facilities safely by visiting the households in question as well as by conducting a safety inspection of gas facilities based on the attachment of gas bags when the moving household becomes a director as well as when the moving household is informed that the moving household is or was a safety manager of the apartment gas facilities of this case where the representative of liquefied petroleum gas collective supplier (trade name omitted) and the high level of danger exists.

However, as long as Defendant 2 did not directly visit the above household and conduct a safety inspection of gas facilities even if he was in contact with the above company, the new household can become a director at the time of removal of the existing gas room, and at least the victim 1 who was a new director at least to the above household was contacted by the victim 1, it can be clearly recognized that the above household's gas room was arbitrarily removed by the third unit, and that it was not connected with the gas pipe of the above household, and whether the removal work was properly carried out, it could be sufficiently anticipated that the gas safety accident may occur due to gas leakage, etc. (in this respect, it is difficult to expect that the above Defendant was voluntarily removed by a third party, etc., until the safety inspection of the previous household was carried out).

Nevertheless, if the victim 1, who was not a new director in the apartment of this case and the victim 1, who had no information about the structure of the apartment gas facilities of this case, said that the plaintiff 1 would not use the used gas because of the lack of information about the use of the used gas, it is reasonable to view that the victim 1 could have sufficiently predicted that the gas in use, even if the gas in use was not used in the apartment of this case as a result of misunderstanding that the gas in use and the gas in use are supplied as a separate pipe, could not be used in a separate pipe, and that the gas in use could not be operated in order to use the gas in use in a separate pipe. Thus, it cannot be said that it could not be predicted that the plaintiff 1 would be able to use the gas by using the used gas for the purpose of using the used gas in an abstract and comprehensive gas.

Therefore, as seen earlier, it was possible to recognize that gas bags are already separated from gas pipes, and there was occupational negligence that did not take necessary measures to prevent accidents even when the possibility of accidents can be predicted depending on circumstances, and such negligence by Defendant 2 is in proximate causal relation with the gas explosion accident in this case.

2. The assertion by Defendant 3 and the judgment on such assertion

Defendant 3 did not request Defendant 1 to separate gas bags or remove middle valves, and Defendant 3 did not request the head of apartment management office to the effect that all the duties related to gas facilities will be performed well by gas supplier, etc. so long as he/she notifies the director of apartment management office of the fact that he/she would be well handled. Thus, Defendant 3 asserts that there was no negligence on the explosion accident

However, according to Defendant 1’s legal statement, Nonindicted 2, 3, and 4’s legal statement, etc., when Defendant 3 asked Defendant 1, a non-qualified company, to remove gas bags, Defendant 1 refused to remove gas bags. However, Defendant 3 again requested Defendant 3 to remove gas bags after telephone conversations with the director company, but Defendant 1 again requested Defendant 3 to remove gas bags. Defendant 1 had no experience of directly removing gas bags installed in the apartment prior to the instant case, and Defendant 1 did not have any reason or motive to remove gas bags without Defendant 3’s request. In light of the fact that Defendant 1 had no reason or motive to remove gas bags, Defendant 1 can recognize the fact that Defendant 3 removed the gas bags with Defendant 3’s request.

Meanwhile, in full view of the purport of the Safety Control and Business of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act, the same Enforcement Rule and the Enforcement Rule of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, etc., liquefied petroleum gas is likely to cause accidents due to gas leakage, as well as to cause large accidents, so that a person who has certain qualifications or licenses in installing and changing gas-using facilities may implement it, and a person who intends to use liquefied petroleum gas shall be equipped with facilities using liquefied petroleum gas and gas appliances meeting certain facility standards and technical standards, thereby preventing accidents due to gas leakage.

In light of the above facts and the purport of the aforementioned relevant laws and regulations, Defendant 3 has a duty of care to prevent gas accidents while performing acts that may pose a threat to gas safety, such as: (a) Defendant 1’s removal of gas bags and separation of gas bags from the intermediate valves as well as gas bags; and (b) failing to take measures for sealing or blocking; and (c) Defendant 1 has a duty of care to prevent gas accidents.

Therefore, Defendant 3 cannot be deemed to have been negligent for Defendant 1, a disqualified person, to request removal of gas bags, and such negligence by Defendant 3 is deemed to have proximate causal relation with the instant gas explosion accident (the fact that Defendant 3, as a director, requested gas inspection to Defendant 2, a safety manager, through the management office, but Defendant 2 was negligent in not taking appropriate measures immediately, and the fact that Defendant 1, etc. was negligent in opening gas valves even with the knowledge that the victim 1, etc. was left away.).

The result of the crime is very serious, such as the death of two victims and the injury of one victim, etc. due to the instant gas explosion accident caused by concurrent negligence by the Defendants. Nevertheless, the Defendants did not make efforts to agree with the victim, and in the case of Defendants 2 and 3, it seems that the circumstances after the crime are not good, such as the Defendants did not intend to transfer their responsibility to other co-defendants, rather than recognizing their own negligence.

However, in light of the circumstances where the Defendants were living without any particular criminal power and their negligence affected the instant accident, and the degree of their negligence, etc., and the overall sentencing conditions, the Defendants should be determined and sentenced as ordered by the sentence, taking into account all the circumstances and all of the sentencing conditions.

Judges Kim Jin-jin (Presiding Judge)