Plaintiff 1 and two others (Attorney Go Jae-won, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and 1 (Attorney Kim Sang-won et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

January 13, 1984

1. Defendant 2 Co., Ltd shall pay to Plaintiff 1 the amount of KRW 9,755,517, and the amount of KRW 6,203,678, each of them shall be paid to Plaintiff 2 and 3 at the rate of five percent per annum from December 25, 1982 to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims against defendant 2 corporation and defendant 1 are all dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the plaintiff and the defendant 2 corporation is divided into two parts, and one of them is the plaintiff's and the remaining part is the defendant's own burden, and the part arising between the plaintiff and the defendant 1 is the plaintiff'

4.Paragraph 1 of this Article may be provisionally executed only by one half.

The defendants jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of 22,265,903 won, the plaintiff 2, and the plaintiff 3 each at the rate of 14,510,602 won and the annual interest rate of 5% from December 25, 1982 to the day of full payment. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants and a declaration of provisional execution.

1. Claim against Defendant 2 Stock Company

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

망 소외 1이 1982. 12. 25.서울 종로구 (상세지번 생략) 소재 피고 1 소유의 연와조 와즙 2층 주택(1층 51평6홉2작, 2층 27평1홉6작, 아래에서는 이사건 주택이라고 한다.) 앞 추녀 밑에서 구두닦이 영업을 하던 중 이 사건 주택 앞면에 쌓아 올린 스라브 미화벽(가로 16미터, 세로 90센티미터, 두께 13센티미터)이 무너져 내려 시멘트 벽돌에 머리를맞고 외상성 내출혈로 사망한 사실은 당사자들 사이에 다툼이 없고, 현장사진인 점에 다툼이 없는 을제1호증의 1내지 4(각 사진)의 각영상, 이 법원의 형사기록검증결과에 나타난 사법경찰리 작성의 소외 2, 3, 4에 대한 각 피의자신문조사, 소외 4, 5, 6, 7, 8에 대한 각 진술조서, 소외 4의 진술서, 검사작성의 소외 5에 대한 진술조서, 소외 4에 대한 피의자 신문조서의 각 기재와 이 법원의 현장검증결과에 변론의 전취지를 모아보면, 위 스라브 미화벽은 1977년경에 이 사건 주택 1층 지붕 처마로부터 주택 앞으로 약 30센티미터 가량 나온 가로, 세로 모두 4.5센티미터의 각목 위에 두께 1.5센티미터의 송판을 깔고 그 위에 시멘트 벽돌을 쌓아 올려 설치되어 있는 사실, 그리고 소외 4가 1980. 12. 15.부터 이 사건 사고당시까지 피고 1로부터 이 사건 주택을 임차하여 (상호 생략)갈비라는 음식점을 경영하면서 점유사용하여 왔는 바, 그소외인은 1981. 1.경 위 스라브 미화벽에 가로 90센티미터 높이 3.3미터 되는 (상호 생략)갈비라고 쓴 아크릴 입간판을 부착시켜 설치하였던 사실, 한편 망 소외 1은 1981년경부터 이 사건 주택 앞 출입구 오른쪽에 자리를 잡아 천막을 치고 구두닦이 영업을 하여 온 사실, 그런데 이 사건 주택 5미터 앞 한길에는 피고 2 주식회사(아래에서는 피고 2 회사라고만 한다)가 1981. 9. 21.부터 지하철 제3호선 제320공구(서울 종로구 안국동 정부종합청사 후문에서부터 같은 구 재동 로우터리까지 사이)지하철 공사를 시공하고 있었는 바, 지하철 공사가 시작된 이후로 이 사건 주택과 그 왼쪽 걸스카우트회관사이 폭 3미터 가량되는 길 위에 틈이 생기고, 그 길에 접하고 있는 이 사건 주택 브록크 벽이 갈라지며 이 사건 주택 오른쪽 상업은행 재동지점 출입구 계단 옆 대리석 등에도 금이 가고, 이 사건 주택의 출입문 위 벽부분, 1층 식당 바닥과 벽, 천정 등에도 갈라진 틈이 생기게 된 후 1982. 9.경 이후부터는 갈라진 틈이 점점 더 커졌으며, 이와 같은 현상은 위 지하철 공사장에서 약 20미터 깊이로 토공 굴착을 함으로써 그 주변 땅 속의 수분이 굴착된 깊은 곳으로 빠지게되어 지면에 틈이 생길뿐만 아니라 아래로 내려가는 침하현상으로 말미암아 일어나게 된 사실, 이에 소외 4가 1982. 11. 25. 경 위 지하철 공사장에서 나온 안전점검반원 소외 9, 10 등에게 이 사건주택에 위와 같이 갈라진 틈이 생긴 것을 보여 주고 위험에 대한 대책을 요구하였으나(피고 1에게는 이를 알리지 아니하였다), 소외 9, 10 등은 위험한 상태가 아니라고 말하였고, 또한 위 지하철 공사장의 현장소장인 소외 5도 피고 2 회사의 직원인 소외 8로부터 위와 같은 사실을 들어서 알게 되었는데도 지표침하측정만을 지시하고 아무런 위험방지조치를 취하지 아니하였으며, 그리고 위 지하철공사장의 안전문제를담당하고 있는 공사과장 소외 3도 역시 이 사건주택에 대한 아무런 위험방지조치를 취하지 아니한 사실, 그러던 중 소외 4는 이 사건 사고일인 1982. 12. 25. 15:00경 위 스라브 미화벽에서 모래가 떨어지고 이 사건 주택의갈라진 틈이 더 넓게 벌어져 있는 것을 발견하고, 그 전날 비가 온 일도 있어서 위 스라브 미화벽이 물기를흡수하여 무게가 무거워졌을 것이므로 혹시 위 스라브 미화벽이 무너지지 않을까 하는 생각이 들어서 이 사건 주택 1층 식당 카운터에 있던 그의 처인 소외 11에게 카운터에서 비키라고 말하고 중앙청 앞 지하철공사 현장사무실에 신고하러 갔는데 그 사이 15:10경 위 스라브 미화벽이 무너져 내리면서 이 사건 사고가 일어난 사실, 그런데 위 스라브 미화벽이 무너지게 된 원인은 위 스라브 미화벽 자체와 거기에 부착하여 소외 4가 설치한 입간판의 무게를, 스라브 미화벽을 받치고 있던 각목과 송판이 지탱하기 어려웠던데다가 위 지하철공사로 인한 지면의 침하 현상으로 말미암아 이 사건 주택에 갈라진 틈이 생겨 지탱하는 힘이 더욱 약해짐으로써 위 미화벽이 무너져 내린 사실을 각 인정할 수 있고, 위 인정에 어긋나는 듯한 이 법원의 형사기록검증결과에 나타난 사법경찰리 작성의 소외 2에 대한 피의자신문조서, 소외 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12에 대한 각 진술조서, 소외 4의 진술서, 지표침하측정, 토목학회의수사협조회신, 검사작성의 소외 5에 대한 진술조서의 각 일부기재는 믿을 수 없고, 이 법원의 형사기록검증결과에 나타난 추송의 기재는 위 인정에 방해가 되지 아니하고, 그 밖에 반증이 없다.

According to the above facts, when the defendant 2's non-party 5 or the non-party 3, who is the chief of the above subway construction site office of the defendant 2 company, takes measures to prevent the invasion in the subway construction, and when there is a gap in the house of this case due to the phenomenon of subsidence caused by the subway construction, it shall be repaired and the accident of this case occurred due to the negligence that did not take such measures despite the fact that there was a duty of care to prevent the occurrence of the accident of this case. Thus, the non-party 3 and the non-party 5's employer is liable for all damages suffered by the above non-party 2 and the plaintiffs as seen below due to the accident of this case related to the execution of their duties.

On the other hand, according to the above facts, the above non-party deceased could have known that there was a gap as above in the house of this case and that the above Slob might collapse, so in order to secure the safety of his own life and body, it can be recognized that the oral cleaning in front of the house of this case would have been the cause of the accident of this case if he could have been exempted from the accident of this case if he had been engaged in business and evacuated to another place. The negligence of the non-party deceased's above did not amount to the extent that he would be exempted from the liability of this case for damages of this case, but the above negligence of the non-party deceased did not amount to the extent that he would be exempted from the liability of this case of the defendant 2 company, but it should be considered in determining the amount of damages to be compensated by the defendant 2, and the ratio of the negligence of the above non-party deceased's above shall be

(b) Scope of damages;

(1) Loss of expected import loss by the deceased Nonparty 1.

The above non-party 1's evidence Nos. 2 (a certified copy of family register), evidence Nos. 1, 2-1, 2-2 (B's cover mark, content), and evidence Nos. 2-2 (construction price sign, content thereof), and evidence Nos. 3 (a certificate) acknowledged to be true because there is no dispute over the public nature part, and the testimony of Non-party 13 (except part not believed) of the witness. In light of the whole purport of the oral argument, the above non-party 1's physical health was born on Nov. 8, 1948, which was left on Nov. 34, 194 at the time of the accident of this case, and the average remaining life of our age was 3.56 years, and the above non-party 2's average remaining life life was 400,000,000 won per month since the oral cleaning at the time of the accident of this case, the average wage of the deceased cannot be acknowledged until 40,000 ordinary workers's day of this case.

According to the above facts, the above non-party 2 had no accident of this case, for 70 months from December 25, 1982 to November 7, 1988, which would have been 40,00 won for 13,333 (40,00 x 1/3,40) out of 166,666 won (40,00 won - 133,33333 (40,40,40) as its daily living expenses, and 266,13,3333 won, - 269,460 won, actual 266,33 won, 266, and 1666, and 306,00 won, which would have been 166,00 won until 17,50,000 won, 360,000 won, 166,000 won, 366,065,000 won, respectively, and 14,06,05,05,00.

The Plaintiffs asserted the loss of importation as the instant damages on the premise that, even after the above person’s 40 years of age, oral cleaning could be engaged in business until the end of 55 years of age, the said person’s 40 years of age, but the witness Nonparty 13’s testimony, who seems consistent with the above alleged facts, cannot be trusted, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the above facts, so

(2) Fruits offsetting

Considering the above negligence of the Non-Party 27,518,391, the amount of damages that Defendant 2 is liable to compensate is 19,262,873 won (27,518,391 KRW 0.70).

(3) Inheritance relationship

According to the evidence No. 1 as seen earlier, Plaintiff 1’s wife, Plaintiff 2, and Plaintiff 3’s children can be acknowledged, and the above Non-Party 1 died on December 25, 1982. As such, the Plaintiffs were deemed to have succeeded to the common property of the above deceased. As such, Plaintiff 1 inherited KRW 19,262,873, in proportion to the respective statutory inheritance ratio of KRW 8,25,517 ( KRW 19,262,873 KRW x3/7), Plaintiff 2, and 3, respectively, at KRW 5,503,678 ( KRW 19,262,873 KRW x2/7).

(4) Consolation money

In light of the empirical rule that the above Non-Party 1 died and that the plaintiffs in his status relationship suffered a huge mental pain as seen earlier, the defendant is obligated to give a monetary reward. Thus, considering the above plaintiffs' personal relation, the background and result of the accident in this case, the degree of negligence of both parties, and other circumstances revealed in the argument in this case, the amount of consolation money to be paid by the defendant shall be determined at KRW 1,50,000 as to the plaintiff 1, and KRW 700,000 as to the plaintiff 2 and 3, respectively.

2. Claim against the defendant 1;

The Plaintiff asserted that Defendant 1 was liable for all damages suffered by Nonparty 1 and the Plaintiffs due to the instant accident, which occurred due to the defect in the construction and preservation of the instant house, as the owner of the instant building, which is a structure of this case. Thus, the Plaintiff is liable for the primary responsibility of the possessor of the instant structure, and only when the possessor was not negligent in giving due attention necessary for the prevention of damages. However, there is no evidence to prove that Nonparty 4, the possessor of this case, did not neglect to pay due attention necessary for the prevention of the instant accident. Rather, according to the above facts, even if Nonparty 4 installed a sign on the SBS wall and caused risk factors, it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff’s assertion was negligent in giving repair to Defendant 1, the owner of the instant house of this case, or neglecting his own repair without his own repair.

3. Conclusion

Thus, Defendant 2 is obligated to pay to Plaintiff 1 the above sum of KRW 9,755,517 ( KRW 8,255,517 + KRW 1,500,000 + KRW 1,500), Plaintiff 2, and 3 each at 6,203,678 won ( KRW 5,503,678 + KRW 70,000) and damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum, which is the interest rate under the Civil Act, from December 25, 1982 to the day of full payment. Accordingly, the part against the above Defendant in the plaintiffs' claim is cited within the above recognized scope, and all of the remaining claims and the remainder are dismissed, and with respect to the payment of litigation costs, Article 89, Article 92, Article 93, and Article 19 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be applied to provisional execution. It is so decided as per Disposition by the Supreme Court Decision.

January 27, 1984

Judges Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Judge)