In cases where a former lessee has died due to addiction to scarbane gas from the floor of the previous room, the relationship between the liability for damages shall accrue.

In the event that a sub-lessee sub-leases a studio of a third person's entire house and a studio gas has died due to a rupture of a studio as a result of a demand for the studio repair even after the sub-lessee received a demand for the studio repair, if the studio gas was shotling or the sub-lessees due to the fault that caused the studios or the studios' negligence in managing the said house, only the studios who are the direct occupant of the said house may claim damages,

Article 758 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and four others

Defendant 1 and two others

Seoul Civil History District Court (82 Gohap90)

The appeal by the plaintiffs and the appeal by the defendant 3 are dismissed. Of the appeal costs, the part due to the plaintiffs' appeal is borne by the plaintiffs, and the part due to the appeal by the defendant 3 is borne by the defendant 3.

A provisional execution may be effected on the part which has not been sentenced in the original judgment in paragraph (1) of the text of the original judgment.

The plaintiffs jointly and severally pay to the plaintiffs 1 25,794,630 won, 2, 3, 4, and 5 respectively, 500,000 won and 25 percent per annum from the day following the delivery of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendants and a declaration of provisional execution.

The plaintiffs shall revoke the original judgment.

The defendants jointly and severally seek a declaration of provisional execution against the plaintiff 1 on the amount of 25,794,630 won, 2, 3, 4, and 5 each of 500,000 won and 25 percent per annum from the day following the delivery of the complaint of this case to the day after the completion of the complaint of this case. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants in both the first and second instances. The defendant 3 revoked the part against the defendant 3 in the original judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to that part.

The court costs are assessed against all the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

(1) Occurrence of damages liability

On November 29, 1981, the non-party 1 was unable to use the non-party 2's new floor for the purpose of the inspection of the facts that the non-party 2 was deceased on the non-party 1's new floor because it was difficult for the non-party 2 to use the non-party 3's new floor for the inspection of the facts that the non-party 1 was deceased on the non-party 2's new floor because of the non-party 3's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 2's non-party 3's new floor.

According to the above facts, the accident in this case occurred concurrently due to the negligence of Defendant 3, a direct possessor of the above house, and the negligence of non-party 3, even though the non-party 3, as the lessee of the above house, caused the negligence of management of the house and the non-party 3, who did not make remuneration for the damage suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident in this case. On the other hand, the non-party 3's negligence should be considered in calculating the amount of compensation in the future.

Defendant 1 and 2 are co-owners of the above house and Defendant 1 are managing the above house on behalf of the above two persons, and they are care for the preservation and management of the above house so that it does not interfere with the use of the above house as a residence, and if there is any defect in the indoors of the smokestack in the process of gas emitted from the above deceased, it shall be repaired so as not to do so, and even if Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 have a duty of care to prevent accidents in advance, they shall not be responsible for the damages of the above building because they did not ask the above owners of the above house to repair the above house on behalf of the above two persons, and therefore, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 are not responsible for the damages of the above building on behalf of the above non-party 1 and the above non-party 2 were not responsible for the damages due to the defect in the preservation and management of the house as the owner of the above building. Thus, Defendant 1 and 2 were not responsible for the damages of the above building on behalf of the above non-party 2.

(2) Scope of damages

(A) Property damage

In light of the whole purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 (No. 1), Gap evidence No. 2 (Simplified Life Table), and No. 4-1 and No. 4-2 (Agricultural Cooperative Survey Report No. 3 and Contents), the above non-party deceased's age was about 20 years and average life expectancy was about 52 years at the time of the accident as a female of February 3, 1961, and the average life expectancy was about 52 years. The daily wages of the adult female as of September 9, 1981, before the date of the accident in this case, at least the above amount was about 5,826 won per day, after the accident, it can be acknowledged that the living expenses of the deceased were operated by the end of 55 years of age, and according to the purport of the oral argument that the living expenses of the non-party deceased were 30 percent of revenues of the above non-party deceased's living expenses.

According to the above facts, the above non-party deceased was able to obtain the net income of KRW 101,955 (145,650-43,695), which was limited to KRW 145,650 (5,826 x 25) monthly living expenses from the end of 35 years (5,826 x 25) until the end of 55 years of age (5,826 x 25) for at least 145,650 won (145,65,650-43,695) for at least 101,955 won (145,65,695) for the period of 145,650 won until the end of 55 months of age (5,826 x 25) for the above damages. As such, the plaintiffs were able to obtain the above income due to the accident in this case, they were able to make compensation for the above damages at once as of the accident.

However, according to the above evidence No. 1, the non-party deceased did not have a lineal descendant and can recognize the fact that the mother was the plaintiff 1 as a lineal ascendant, so the non-party deceased's claim for damages on the part of the non-party deceased should have solely inherited the plaintiff 1.

(B) Consolation money

The fact that the plaintiff 1 was the mother of the non-party deceased is as seen earlier, and according to the above Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff 2 can recognize the fact that the plaintiff 1 was the mother, and the remaining plaintiffs were the siblings. Since the non-party deceased died due to the accident of this case, it is recognized in accordance with the experience rule that the above plaintiffs suffered mental suffering. Thus, the defendant 3 is obligated to pay it in cash. The amount is reasonable to determine the plaintiff 1's 1,00,000,000 won by taking into account the circumstance and result of the accident of this case, degree of negligence, family relation, and all other circumstances shown in the argument.

(3) Conclusion

Thus, Defendant 3 is obligated to pay to Plaintiff 1 the remaining plaintiffs a solatium of KRW 19,00,00,000, including the above property damages and consolation money, at the rate of 25% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from February 2, 1982 to the date of full payment of the complaint of this case, each of which is a consolation money of KRW 500,000,00, as well as the above property damages and consolation money to the plaintiffs. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims against Defendant 1 and 2 against the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are without merit. Accordingly, the judgment below is just and without merit, and it is dismissed, and with respect to the burden of appeal expenses, Article 95, 93, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be applied to the provisional execution sentence as prescribed by Article 19 of the same Act.

Justices Park Sang-chul (Presiding Judge)