[1] Legislative intent and scope of application of the Act on the Responsibility for Fire Caused by Negligence

[2] Whether the Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by Fire Officials for Fire-Fighting applies to fire-fighting (affirmative)

[3] The case holding that a fire officer's liability for damages is unlawful by applying the Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by Fire-Fighting in a case where a second-time fire occurred at a place separated from the first place where the first fire occurred and the partitions after the lapse of three hours since a fire officer failed to remove all the fire in the course of fire extinguishment

[1] The legislative purpose of the Act on the Responsibility for Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Fire, which is to protect the fire from excessive burden of the fire-fighters by limiting the responsibility for fire-fighting by taking into account the fact that the damage was caused by the fire-fighting of nearby houses and other things and the responsibility of the fire-fighters is excessive. In light of such legislative purpose, this Act is not applied to the fire-fighting room of articles which are indivisible with the point of fire-fighting, i.e., direct fire-fighting, and it is reasonable to interpret it as applicable only to the

[2] In full view of the fact that fire officers dispatched to the scene of a fire to extinguish a fire and engage in extinguishing a fire at the scene, once a fire occurs, and even if the second-class fire occurred due to a mistake in the process of extinguishing the fire, this is occurred in the process of preventing damage caused by a fire that has already occurred, unlike normal fire extinguishment. Fire fighting activities of fire fighting officers have the characteristics of public power activities of the State or local governments, and have the aspects of protecting each citizen's property and life as well as their own property and life. Fire fighting officers have a high level of duty of care as people with professional knowledge and skills in the fire fighting, while they are in the process of extinguishing the fire at the risk of their physical danger, considering the special nature of fire fighting officers in the process of extinguishing the fire fighting, it is reasonable to consider that the Act on the Liability for Fire Fighting applies to fire Fighting, which is a civil liability of fire fighting officers, even if they are not recognized as having suffered damage due to gross negligence or gross negligence due to fire fighting.

[3] The case holding that the fire officer's liability for damages is unlawful by applying the Fire Liability Act to fire officers in case where the second fire is occurred at a place separated from the first fire-prevention place and partitions after three hours of time since fire-fighting officers failed to remove all fire-fighting sources in the course of fire-fighting

[1] The Act on the Liability for Fire-Fighting / [2] the Act on the Liability for Fire-Fighting / [3] the Act on the Liability for Fire-Fighting

[1] Supreme Court Decision 82Meu1038 delivered on December 13, 1983 (Gong1984, 159), Supreme Court Decision 97Da3412 delivered on March 13, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 1018), Supreme Court Decision 99Da32431 delivered on May 26, 200 (Gong200Ha, 1503)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Tae, Attorneys Choi Young-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul Special Metropolitan City (Attorney Han Man-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 99Na61325 delivered on December 28, 2000

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Summary of the judgment of the court below

A. Facts of recognition

The Plaintiff, among the second floor of the instant building in which the fire occurred, was engaged in salt and food processing business in the name of “○○○○○○○○○○”, and Nonparty 1 leased approximately 100 square meters among the second floor of the same building and “△△△△△△△△△” on the trade name of “○○○○○○○○○○○”.

○○○ Company and △△-△△△△△ was divided into partitionss made of approximately three meters high and about 11 meters high and high in length, but around 02:30 on June 17, 1998, when a person, who was Nonparty 2, while drunk, drives tobacco in a △△△△△△△△ factory, and moved a cigarette to a light source, etc. in the surrounding area while driving the cigarette, and then transfers the cigarette to a petroleum box and a petroleum tank, all of △△△△△△△△△ factory was in the accident (hereinafter referred to as “first fire”).

The fire officers of the △△ Fire Station under the Defendant sent to the site after receiving a fire report and extinguishing the fire from the scene until 02:55, and then assigned to the △△△△ Fire Station to the site of △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△

The partitions between ○○○ and △△△△△△△△ was cut down to a level of nine meters in length due to the primary fire. At the time, ○○○○ was stored in the partitions near △△△△△△△△△, and around one meter high, the clothes and the center of the center of the center of the center of the center of the center of the center of the center of the center of the center of the center of the center of the center of the center of the center of the center of the center of the center of the center of the building of the center of the center of the center of the building of the center of the center of the building of the center of the building of the center of the

After fire officers were dismissed, the police officers controlled the general public's access to the fire site in order to preserve the site, and around 07:25 on the same day, at around 07:25, the police officers started to take a large number of impreged with the flusium that was accumulated near the △△△△△△△△△△△ in the ○○○○ and began to make the impreged so as to make the impreged so as to make the impreged, while the fire officers were dispatched again, and the fire officers were extinguishing the fire at around 07:40 on the same day, but approximately 50 square meters out of the 70th ○○ commercial (hereinafter referred to as the "second fire").

After the occurrence of the first fire, all of the buildings in this case were prevented.

B. Determination

From the first fire immediately after the second fire, the entry of the general public was prohibited in the instant fire site until the second fire occurred, and electricity was not supplied because all power supply lines were cut off at the time of the second fire to the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ at the time of the second fire, the occurrence of the first fire and the second fire is relatively close to time, and the second fire was turned out in the clothes and the parts of the body he he was he was he was he was he was he was he was he was scept up at the time of the first fire, and it is reasonable to presume that the second fire was caused by the first fire that the fire was scept out for a long time (the state of combustion by the time when the fire was turned out with the scick and the parts of the sckes, which were stored in the ○○○○○○○○○ commercial through the schilling part at the time of the first fire.

At the time of the first fire-fighting, it is anticipated that the fire-fighting officers in charge of the first fire-fighting should have actively removed the clothes or original parts of the fire-fighting officers, which were in charge of the second fire-fighting, and then spread water by means of spreading water. However, the fire-fighting officers' simple dusting a part of the water from the clothes and original parts of the ○○○○ company, which was eventually not preventing the second fire, are responsible for compensating the Plaintiff for damages caused by the second fire. Moreover, the second fire of this case is not a burning from the first fire site, but the second fire of this case was caused by negligence by fire-fighting officers who did not sufficiently suppress the clothes and original parts of the ○○○○ company, and thus, the Act on the Liability for Fire-Fighting does not apply to this case as it constitutes a fire independent of the first fire and directly falls under a fire, and thus, it does not apply to this case.

2. The judgment of this Court

A. The legislative purpose of the Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Fire Caused by Fire, is to relieve the fireer from excessive burden by limiting liability by taking into account the fact that the damage was caused by the burning of nearby houses and other things and the responsibility of the firer is excessive. In light of such legislative purpose, this Act is not applied directly to fire, i.e., fire, but to only to the burning part (see, e., Supreme Court Decisions 82Da1038, Dec. 13, 1983; 97Da3412, Mar. 13, 1998; 9Da32431, May 26, 2000).

However, in light of the fact that fire officers dispatched to a fire site for the purpose of extinguishing a fire and engage in extinguishing a fire, once a fire takes place at the site after the occurrence of the fire. Thus, even if the secondary fire occurred due to a mistake in the process of extinguishing the fire, this would occur in the process of preventing the damage caused by the fire, unlike normal fire extinguishment, and the fire officers' fire extinguishment activities have the characteristics of public authority of the State or local governments, and have the aspects of protecting each citizen's property and life as well as the fire officers' special duty of care as those with professional knowledge and skills in the fire extinguishment, while they are in the process of extinguishing the fire, they should take into account the special nature of the fire officers in the process of extinguishing the fire at the risk of their physical danger, and the Act on the Liability for Fire Caused by Negligence is applied.

Therefore, even if a second-class fire occurred due to a fire officer's mistake in the process of fire extinguishment, if gross negligence is not recognized for the fire officer, the fire officer himself/herself or the local government as his/her employer shall not be held liable for civil damages.

B. In light of the record, the court below's determination that the cause of the second fire in this case was transferred to the clothes and the upper part of the body that had been located in the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○,

The grounds of appeal pointing out this issue are rejected.

C. However, according to the records, the fire station 02:35 on the same day of the fire arrive at the fire site after three minutes, and the fire engine 02:55 arrived at the fire site, and the fire officers were actually destroyed by fire officers at around 02:55, and fire officers at around 04:05 look at the fire site, such as a natural rain and a glar, and the fire officers at the fire site such as a glar, and at the same time look at the location of the fire site, and at the same time there was a scrubing of the clothes or fibers, the remaining greshing work is followed, and the partitions between ○○ company and △△△△△△△△△△△△△△ was additionally fluored, and the fire officers at around 04:30.

In addition, under the current fire-fighting technology, fire officers are not secured a scientific method to determine the possibility of decoration in the field of fire, and the removal of all secondary fire fighters in the situation where various objects are scattered at night as in the instant fire site, such as the instant fire site, is likely to cause other losses or disputes, such as damage to the goods not damaged, with practical difficulties. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that fire officers could not have predicted in advance that fire can not occur again through the process of a decoration for a considerable period of time from the first fire site to the second fire site, so it is difficult to recognize the negligence of fire officers participating in the process of the first fire fighting in the process of the instant second fire site as well as the negligence of fire fighting officers participating in the process of the first fire fighting.

On the other hand, the court below recognized the negligence of fire officers with regard to the second fire, and excluded the application of the Act on the Responsibility for Fire Caused by Fire Fighting, and recognized the defendant's liability for damages with regard to the application of the Act on the Liability for Fire Fighting and the judgment on the severity of the negligence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The part of the grounds of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment below 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 on the bench.

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)