(a) The relationship between the possessor and the owner's liability for damages caused by defects in the installation or preservation of a structure;

(b) In case where the lessee leases all the sites and buildings located above and below the stable, whether the leased object includes the stable cost (affirmative with qualification)

A. Under Article 758 of the Civil Act, the liability for damages inflicted on another person due to a defect in the installation or preservation of a structure is primaryly the possessor of the structure who actually occupies and manages the structure, directly and specifically, while controlling the structure, and the possessor of the structure is not negligent in giving due attention to the prevention of damages, and thus, the owner of the structure is liable for damages in the second place.

B. Unless there are special circumstances, such as that the lessee agreed not to include the stable in the leased object when leasing all the sites and buildings on the upper and lower sides of the stable, it would be consistent with the transactional practice or our rule of experience to view that the lessee was possessing and managing the stable together with the stable.

a.B.Article 758 of the Civil Code. Article 618 of the Civil Code

A. Supreme Court Decision 71Da2447 delivered on April 25, 1972 (Gong1981, 14207) 73Da1077 delivered on March 25, 1975 (Gong1975, 8367) 81Da209 delivered on July 28, 1981 (Gong1981, 14207)

Plaintiff 1 and three others

Defendant-Appellant No. 1

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na37630 delivered on May 15, 1992

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed.

The case is remanded to the Seoul High Court on this part.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The court below held that the above building was owned by the defendant 2, 000 square meters above and the above 14.2m of cement 14m of the upper part of the building, and that the above building was owned by the non-party 2 and the above 1m of the building was owned by the non-party 1,000 square meters above, and that the above 1m of cement 1,000 square meters below the above 1,000 square meters below the above 1m of the building, and that the above 2m of cement 1,000 square meters below the above 1m of the building, which were owned by the non-party 1,000 square meters below the above 1,000 square meters below the above 2m of the building, and that the above 2m of cement 1,0000 square meters below the above 1,0000 square meters of the above 2,000 square meters of the above 1,000 square meters of the building.

2. Under Article 758 of the Civil Act, the liability for damages incurred to another person due to the defect in the installation or preservation of a structure is primaryly and specifically controlled by the possessor of a structure who actually occupies and manages the structure (see Supreme Court Decision 71Da2447, Apr. 25, 1972). If it is proved that the possessor of the structure did not neglect due care necessary for the prevention of damages, the owner of the structure shall be held liable for the damages (see Supreme Court Decision 81Da209, Jul. 28, 1981). Thus, as alleged by the defendant, unless it is proved that the above non-party 2 did not neglect due to the defect in the installation or preservation of the said axis, the defendant, the owner of the said axis, is not liable for the damages.

According to the evidence Nos. 7-1, 2 (Certified Copy), 8 (Certified Copy of Building Ledger), 12-4 (Verification Protocol), and 13 (Appraisal Evidence), which are admitted as evidence, the lower court also has constructed a stable in the place of the building site of this case 574.7 square meters, and the upper part of the axis was constructed with cement brick slves with a floor of 93.15 square meters ( underground room 4.32 square meters) located in the above non-party 2, and the lower part of the axis was constructed with a cement brick slves with a house of 5.89 square meters from the above non-party 2, and the fact that the above plaintiffs were constructed with a cement brick slives and slves with a cement slves building built from the above non-party 2, and if the facts were determined and recognized as above, the above non-party 2 was not included in the above practice or practice of management of the building site from the above defendant, barring special circumstances.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that it is reasonable to view that the above construction cost is not included in the leased object of the above building and site because it is a separate structure that is distinguishable from the above building and site, and rejected the defendant's assertion that the above non-party 2 is the possessor of the above construction site. Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the possessor of a structure or in misunderstanding facts in violation of the rules of evidence, or it is obvious that such illegality has an effect on the judgment, and therefore, there is a reason to point this out.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.