The order of responsibility of indirect possessors in case where damage has been inflicted on others due to the defect in installation or preservation of a structure.

If the possession of a structure is indirect possession when damage is inflicted on another person due to a defect in the installation or preservation of a structure, the indirect possessor shall be liable only when the direct possessor is first liable and he cannot be liable to the direct possessor.

Hong Sungcheon et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellee-appellant

Attorney Park Young-chul et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 72Na647 delivered on June 13, 1973

The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

As to the Defendant’s Attorney’s ground of appeal:

In its explanation of its reasoning, the judgment of the court below held that the accident of this case was caused by the defect in the preservation of the above ferries and the negligence on the part of the non-party on the part of the fleet, although the safety of inundation and the navigation of the ferries was maintained for the flood caused by the aging of the ferry in this case and the safety of the pilotage, and that the defendant Gun, upon entering into a contract with the co-defendant of the court below to manufacture the above ferries and operate the above ferries in order to promote the lecture convenience for the residents of the flow of the Nakdongdong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si, and that even though the defendant Kim Young-dong-dong-dong actually occupied and controlled the above ferries in fact, the defendant Gun, as the owner or possessor of the above ferries, was jointly and severally liable for damages caused by the above ferries's tort.

However, according to the purport of the oral argument, the plaintiff asserts that he is liable to the defendant Gun as an employer under Article 756 of the Civil Code or as a result of the defect in the preservation of a structure under Article 758 of the same Act. On the premise that he is the direct possessor of the above Pilotage Kim Young-m, the original judgment recognized that the defendant Gun was liable to compensate for the accident in this case on the premise that he is the owner and the indirect possessor of the above Pilotage Kim Young-m, and that he was the direct possessor of the above Pilotage Kim Young-m, the defendant Gun was liable to compensate for the damage to others due to the defect in the installation or preservation of the structure, the possessor of the structure shall be held liable only when he was first responsible for the damage and the possessor did not neglect to exercise due care to prevent the damage. However, the court below's decision did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the indirect possessor's liability for damages due to the defect in this case on the part of the defendant Gun, which was the direct possessor of the ferries-m.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges pursuant to Article 406 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Justices Rin- Port (Presiding Justice)