The case recognizing joint tort liability of the owner and the contractor for accidents that occur in the course of the use of the building by installing and selling a defective Vietnam rail;

In a case where a child was injured due to a crashing of a 5th floor bed from a 5th floor bed, the case holding that a construction company, which has been awarded a contract for construction of a residential building, is liable to implement construction in accordance with the design drawings and specifications under the Building Act and other Acts and subordinate statutes and to not construct a defective building that may cause harm to people's life and body, and thus, if the user of the building suffers from an accident caused by the said defect in the course of residential use, he/she shall be liable to compensate for damages due to the tort, and the Korea National Housing Corporation, which has contracted the new construction to the construction company for sale in lots, sold it to the general public and sold it in accordance with the design drawings or specifications, is also liable to prevent the defective construction in advance by thoroughly examining and supervising the construction work, and in violation of this, he/she shall not be held liable to compensate the owner of the building and the contractor for joint tort as long as it did not repair the defective apartment construction in compliance with the design specifications at the time of the accident and caused damage to the occupant at the time of the accident.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and four others (Attorney Yellow-gu, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea National Housing Corporation and one other (Attorneys Kim Jong-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

1. The Defendants shall pay to each of the plaintiffs 1 17, 955, 388 won, 2,000 won, 4, and 5 each of them to the plaintiffs 2,00,000 won, 1,000,000 won, and 25 percent per annum from May 10, 1995 to the date of full payment.

2. Each of the plaintiffs' remaining claims is dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit are divided into two parts, one of which is the plaintiffs, and the other is the defendants' own burden.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendants jointly and severally pay 30,810,776 won to plaintiffs 2, and 3,00,000 won for each of them to plaintiffs 4, and 5 respectively, and 2,00,000 won for each of them and 2,50% per annum from the day following the imposition of this sentence to the day of full payment.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Grounds for liability

(1) recognised facts

(A) Around April 1979, Defendant Saman Korea National Housing Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant Corporation”) contracted the construction of the apartment building on the five-story of the 768 reinforced concrete structure slive roof in Seocho-si, 1980, and the Defendant Company completed the construction of the apartment building around 1980. The Defendant Corporation completed the construction of the apartment building around March 24, 1980 with respect to the above apartment building No. 507, 40.4m2 (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) under the receipt No. 1608 of March 24, 1980. On March 19, 1981, the Defendant Corporation leased the apartment building of this case to Nonparty Yanan Korea National Housing Corporation Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) in sequence on March 2, 1983.

On August 10, 198, Plaintiff 2 moved into the apartment of this case from the above heart disease. Nonparty 2 acquired the apartment of this case from Defendant Corporation on December 23, 198 and succeeded to Plaintiff 2’s lessor’s status as the lessor of this case, and completed the registration of ownership transfer as of February 8, 1991 by this Court No. 1153.

(B) On May 7, 1989, Plaintiff 1 (the 3 years old and 11 months old at the time of the accident), who is his father, was playing in the bend of the apartment of this case on May 7, 1989, and the rail of the wall surface of the Benland and the first inter-speing (22.5 cm at the time of the accident), went down to the bend of the fifth floor below the upper half floor, and suffered a fall down on the left bottom.

On October 17, 191, 191, after the accident, the plaintiff was hospitalized in the above alley at a medical corporation Dongina Hospital, but continued to cut the left-hand bridge, which was not discovered at the time of the fall, through a remote radioactive inspection at the above hospital on October 17, 191, and then, the post-exploitation was newly discovered, which was damaged by the growth board of the left-hand ladal ladal ladal ladal la

(C) The design drawings and specifications prepared by the Defendant Corporation set the distance from the wall surface on the bend right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and right and the right and right and the right and right and the right and right and right and the right and right and the right and right and the right and right and right and the right and right and the right and right and the right and the right and right and the right and the right and right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right are exercised.

After the above accident, the defendant Corporation carried out the defect repair work by combining two additional lives between the wall surface and the first live in all households of the apartment including the apartment of this case and the apartment of this case.

(D) Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the parents of Plaintiff 1, Plaintiffs 4 and 5, their grandparents.

(Evidence: evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 8 through 12, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4, Eul evidence No. 8-1, 2, witness Round, Haak-kak, Park Young-kak, Oyoung, and the whole purport of this Court's on-site inspection and pleading)

(2) Determination:

According to the above facts, the accident in this case occurred due to the mistake that the defendant company did not perform tight construction of a scrupt scrub in accordance with the design plan of the defendant corporation, and the defendant company, who was awarded a contract for construction of a residential building, shall be responsible for performing construction in accordance with the design plan and specifications under the Building Act and other Acts and subordinate statutes, and for not constructing a defective building that may cause harm to the life and body of people. Thus, in violation of this, the defendant company shall be liable to compensate for damages caused by the tort if the user of the building caused damages due to the defect in the construction of a scrub scru, which did not meet safety.

In addition, as long as the construction of the new apartment in this case was contracted to the defendant company to sell it to the general public, the defendant's construction who sold it to the general public is responsible for thoroughly checking and supervising whether the degree of construction is being performed in accordance with the design drawing or specifications and preventing the defective construction in advance. In violation of this, as long as the apartment in this case where the bera Dora Hand was constructed without repairing the defects, it cannot be exempted from tort liability as the manufacturer's responsibility, unless it causes damages to the plaintiffs, who are occupants at the time of the accident.

Therefore, as a joint tortfeasor, the defendants are liable for compensating the plaintiffs for damages caused by the accident of this case.

B. Determination as to the defendants' defense of extinction of prescription

(1) The defendant company's defense that the defendant corporation completed the construction of the above Vietnam rail before March 24, 1980 when the registration of preservation of ownership was completed on or before March 24, 1980 with respect to the apartment of this case, and the complaint received on December 12, 1994 with respect to the defendant company's complaint. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is proved to have been extinguished by the expiration of prescription because it is obvious that the defendant company was filed on the day following the expiration of the 10-year period from the construction date of the apartment of this case's apartment, the ten-year long-term statute of limitations in the tort should be the starting date of the tort regardless of whether the victim or his legal representative was aware of the damages and the perpetrator's actual exercise of the right to claim. However, the meaning of the harmful act is not the day of harmful act, but the result of actual damage occurred (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da18479, Dec. 26, 1979).

(2) In other words, the defendant company's claim of this case was found to be bequeathed by the plaintiff 1's crash accident, at least 3 years after October 17, 191, and it was filed on December 12, 1994 after 3 years passed since the expiration of the prescription period. Thus, Article 766 (1) of the Civil Act provides that a claim for damages due to a tort shall be extinguished by prescription if the victim or his legal representative does not exercise the claim for damages and the perpetrator's identity for 3 years from the day when he became aware of the damage and the perpetrator's identity. The damage mentioned above means the damage compensation due to the illegal act and the person who becomes the other party to the claim for damages, and the day when the victim or his legal representative becomes aware of the above damage and the perpetrator's legal representative. The fact that the defendant corporation filed a claim for notifying the defendant company on November 2, 1994 during the lawsuit of this case is clear in the record that the plaintiffs was the constructor of this case's apartment, and there is no other evidence to deem that the plaintiffs' defense of this case.

(3) Meanwhile, the facts received by the warden of the defendant Corporation on May 31, 1994 are clear. Since the plaintiffs knew at least before May 31, 1991 of the subsequent legacy caused by the falling accident by the plaintiff 1, the defendant Corporation has a defense that the plaintiffs' claim against the defendant Corporation terminated by prescription before May 31, 1994 after three years passed since the plaintiff 1 suffered damage after the death of the plaintiff 1, the prescription period shall commence only after the date when the plaintiff 1 finally proved such cause and new or expanded damage occurred after the completion of the first unforeseeable damage. According to the evidence No. 3 of the defendant Corporation's claim, since the plaintiff 1 continued to have become aware of the cause of damage to the left-hand side of the above hospital No. 1, the plaintiff 1's medical examination of the above hospital No. 99 of this case, the plaintiff 1's medical examination of the above hospital No. 99 of this case, which was the most likely evidence to acknowledge the above fact that the plaintiff 1 suffered damage to the left-hand hospital No. 1, 97.

C. Limitation on liability

Since Plaintiff 1’s 3 years old and 11 months old at the time of the accident was insufficient to cover the risk of the crash accident, Plaintiff 2 and 3, who are the person with parental authority over the above Plaintiff, have been negligent in neglecting the duty of protection and supervision, such as requesting the Defendant Corporation to repair bend rail of the apartment of this case, installing safety facilities on their own, and monitoring the situation so that the said Plaintiff does not fall out of be mixed with a rail of the bend in bendra.

Since such negligence on the part of the victim was caused by the occurrence of damages caused by the above accident, it shall be considered in calculating the amount of damages to be compensated by the defendants, but it shall be reasonable to view that the ratio of negligence exceeds 50% in light of the above facts, and it shall be limited to the portion remaining 50%, excluding the above ratio of negligence.

(Premium: as above: as the same shall apply to "A."

2. Scope of damages.

(a) Medical expenses;

(1) On April 15, 1994, in order to find out the cause of cutting down the left-hand bridge due to the aftermath of the instant accident, the Plaintiff 1 received a diagnosis from a medical corporation Dong medical corporation on July 28, 1994, from January 28, 1995 to March 13, 195, to claim damages of the instant case after undergoing each medical examination from the Kiju Hospital on March 9, 1993, and from March 15, 1993 to February 20, 195, the Plaintiff 1 spent KRW 6,785,776 in the aggregate of medical expenses after undergoing surgery, etc.

(Evidence: Evidence No. 13-1 to 21, 23 through 27, and the whole purport of pleadings)

(2) Meanwhile, according to the statement No. 13-2 of the evidence No. 13-2 of the above plaintiff, it can be acknowledged that the above plaintiff paid 100,000 won as physical examination fees to the hospital affiliated with the Hancheon-do University Hospital. Although the above plaintiff claimed damages equivalent to the above money, all the expenses directly incurred by the party to the physical examination hospital are included in the appraisal expenses corresponding to the litigation expenses, and the amount disbursed as the litigation expenses can be repaid through the procedure for the determination of the amount of the litigation expenses under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act after the judgment becomes final and conclusive. Thus, this part of the claim is without merit.

(b) Costs for purchasing assistive devices;

gold 370,000 won

(Evidence: Evidence No. 13-28 through 31 and the whole purport of the pleading)

(c) Expenses for future treatment;

(i) Necessary treatment: (i) an extension on the left-hand side reduced of 5.5 cm;

2) Escopic scopic scopics

(2) Required costs: (i) 15,080,000 won;

2) 2,475,00 won

(Premium: Results of a request for physical appraisal of the president of the hospital annexed to this Court, and the whole purport of the oral argument;

(3) mountain.

Total:1) + (2) =17,55,000 won

D. Limitation on liability

◎ 책임비율：50% (위 '1. 다.' 참조)

◎ 계 산：(6, 785, 776원＋370, 000원＋17, 555, 000원)×50/100＝12, 355, 388원

(e) Public offering;

(1) Amount of KRW 800,000 paid for the plaintiff 1 (the fact that the plaintiff's attorney is the plaintiff's attorney)

(2) mountain.

12, 355, 388 – (80, 000 x 50/100 of negligence on the part of the victim) = 11,955, 388 won.

(f) consolation money;

(1) Reasons for consideration: Ghana, family relations, property and level of education, details and result of an accident, degree of negligence on the part of the injured party, and other various circumstances shown in the argument in this case.

(2) The amount determined;

Plaintiff 1: 6, 00, 000, 2, and 3 respectively; 2, 000, 000, 4, 5: 1,000, 000 won, 1,000,000 won

3. Conclusion

Thus, the defendants are liable to pay to each of plaintiffs 1 17, 955, 388 won (11, 95, 388 won + 6, 000, 000 won), plaintiffs 2, and 3 respectively 2,00,000 won, 1,000,000 won, and damages for delay at the rate of 25 percent per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion of Legal Proceedings, etc. from May 10, 1995 to the full payment date as claimed by the plaintiffs. Thus, the plaintiffs' claims are justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed, and they are decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jae-won