The duty to protect the guests of accommodation and the responsibility for violation of the duty to protect the guests;

A lodging agreement entered into with an accommodation business entity, which is a public entertainment business entity, is a lease agreement for the purpose of providing a guest room with which the accommodation business entity can provide the accommodation to the customer and for the use of a kind of accommodation for the purpose of using the guest room and receiving the consideration from the customer, and the accommodation business entity is under the control of the accommodation business entity. As such, the accommodation business entity is obligated to provide the guest room, such as an ordinary lease, and related facilities, to allow the customer to use and profit from the accommodation. Furthermore, the accommodation business entity bears the duty to protect the customer by providing safe and comfortable guest rooms and related facilities that are recognized as having no risk to the customer, taking into account the safety of the customer. Such duty is an incidental duty recognized under the good faith principle, taking into account the characteristics of the accommodation agreement, where the accommodation business entity inflicts loss on the guest by infringing on his/her life and body, and in this case, the victim is obligated to assert and prove the existence of the specific protection obligation and the fact of the violation, and the accommodation entity cannot be exempt from the liability for non-performance of the obligation.

Articles 390 and 653 of the Civil Act, Article 151 of the Commercial Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff 1 and three others (Attorneys Han Han-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Choi Jae-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daegu High Court Decision 96Na2805 delivered on October 10, 1996

Each appeal against the plaintiff 3 and 4 shall be dismissed. Each appeal against the plaintiff 1 and 2 shall be dismissed. The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendant.

1. As to the Defendant’s respective appeals against Plaintiffs 3 and 4

Since an appeal is seeking a change of revocation of a judgment disadvantageous to himself/herself in favor of himself/herself, the appeal against the judgment in favor of him/her in favor of him/her shall be dismissed as there is no subject or interest in filing an appeal (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da2298, Jul. 28, 1981). Accordingly, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, it is clear that the court below dismissed all of the appeals by the above plaintiffs against the judgment in favor of the judgment in favor of the above plaintiffs. Thus, the appeal filed by the defendant against the above plaintiffs is unlawful as having no interest in the appeal, and thus,

2. The defendant's grounds of appeal against plaintiffs 1 and 2 are examined.

A. As to the first ground for appeal

A lodging agreement entered into with an accommodation business entity, which is a public entertainment business entity, is a lease agreement for a kind of temporary use of guest rooms that can provide accommodation to a customer and allow the customer to use it, and the accommodation business entity is under the control of the accommodation business entity. As such, the accommodation business entity is obligated to provide the guest rooms, such as a usual lease, and related facilities, and the accommodation business entity is obligated to use and profit from them. Furthermore, the entity bears the duty to protect the customer by providing safe and comfortable guest rooms and related facilities that are recognized as having no risk to the customer, taking into account the safety of the customer. This obligation is an incidental duty recognized under the good faith principle, taking into account the characteristics of the accommodation agreement, where the accommodation business entity causes loss to the accommodation business entity by infringing on the customer’s life and body. In this case, the victim is obligated to assert and prove the existence of the obligation to protect him/her and the fact of the violation, and the accommodation business entity cannot be held exempt from the liability for his/her long-term negligence, as in ordinary default.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the non-party, based on evidence, was at the time of the above 9th floor of Daegu-gu operated by the defendant, and the non-party was at the time of the above 9th floor of the 10th floor of the 2nd floor of the 2nd floor of the 3th floor of the 2nd floor of the 2nd floor of the 1995, where the plaintiff was at the time of the above 9th floor of the 2nd floor of the 2nd floor of the 2nd floor of the 2nd floor of the 1995, where the plaintiff was at the time of the above 9th floor of the 2nd floor of the 2nd floor of the 1949 floor of the 3nd floor of the 1st floor of the 19th floor of the 1st floor of the 2nd floor of the 3th floor of the 1st floor of the 3rd floor of the 1st floor of the 2nd floor of the 1st floor of the 3rd floor of the 1st floor.

The above fact-finding and determination by the court below are justified in light of the above legal principles and records, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the content of the obligations of the lodging business entity and its default, the transfer of burden of proof, and the incomplete hearing. The argument in this regard is without merit.

B. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

In light of the records, it is reasonable for the court below to consider the fire of this case as caused by the practicalization of the guests in the room 9 of the second floor of the 2nd floor of the 2nd floor of the 2nd floor of the 2nd floor of the 2nd floor of the 2nd floor of the 2nd floor of the 2nd floor, and there

C. Regarding ground of appeal No. 3

According to the facts duly established by the court below, the above deceased was aware of the fact that he was diving and turned out to a corridor with the knowledge of the occurrence of a fire. In such a case, the victim cannot be deemed to have been negligent, and there is no data to deem that there was the victim's negligence differently in the records, so the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to offsetting negligence, or in the incomplete hearing, as alleged in the grounds for appeal. There is no reason for this point

3. Therefore, the Defendant’s appeal against Plaintiffs 3 and 4 shall be dismissed, and the appeal against Plaintiffs 1 and 2 shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)