[1] The degree of "certification of facts" required for civil procedure

[2] The case affirming the judgment below which rejected the plaintiff's assertion on the ground that there is a substantial possibility of a fire to cause a cigarette smoke, but such suspicion alone is insufficient to recognize Gap's employees as being caused by a cigarette smoke, and that Gap's employees' negligence was responsible for proving the cause of a fire to the plaintiff

[1] In civil procedure, the proof of facts is not a natural scientific proof that is not the suspicion of prosecution, but a high probability exists to recognize that there was a fact by comprehensively examining all evidence in light of the empirical rule, barring any special circumstance, and the judgment needs to be made to the extent that the ordinary person would not be doubtful if it is ordinary.

[2] The case affirming the judgment below which rejected the plaintiff's assertion on the ground that there is a substantial possibility of a fire to cause a cigarette smoke, but such suspicion alone is insufficient to recognize Gap's employees as being caused by a cigarette smoke, and that Gap's employees' negligence is the plaintiff's liability to prove that the fire was caused by the plaintiff's employees.

[1] Article 288 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 288 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 89Meu7730 delivered on June 26, 1990 (Gong1990, 1558) Supreme Court Decision 99Da65097 delivered on February 25, 2000

Plaintiff 1 and four others (Attorney Seo-hee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na14466 decided May 1, 200

Daejeon High Court Decision 2007Na4965 Decided December 20, 2007

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In civil litigation, the proof of facts is not a natural scientific proof that is not a suspicion of prosecution, but a high probability exists that can be inferred from the overall examination of all evidence in light of the empirical rule, barring any special circumstance. The judgment requires that the ordinary person be free from suspicion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Meu7730, Jun. 26, 1990; 99Da65097, Feb. 25, 2000).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its holding, and rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that there was a possibility of fire caused by the failure of the employees to smoke in the Pyeongtaek room in light of the following facts: (a) the employees of Pyeongtaek-si were unable to smoke in the crating room; (b) the non-party 1's statement that the non-party 2 was put to the crating room twice again; (c) the non-party 2's statement that the fire was presumed to have been caused by the cigarette smoking; and (d) the non-party 3 was unable to smoke in the crating room one hour prior to the occurrence of the fire of this case; and (e) the cing room was kept by the crating room, and there was a possibility that the fire by electricity or third party was less likely to cause the fire of this case; and (b) further, (c) the defendant's assertion that the fire of this case was likely to cause the fire of this case by the employees of this case, and (d) the defendant's allegation that the fire of this case was insufficient.

Upon examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or the legal principles as to causation or tort liability system, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

In addition, insofar as there is no evidence to prove the negligence of the defendant or his employees, so long as the establishment of a tort cannot be recognized, the argument in the grounds of appeal, which is premised on the application of the Act on the Liability for Realization, wholly amended by Act No. 9648, May 8, 2009, cannot be accepted.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)