[1] The purport of imposing the duty of safety inspection and guidance on liquefied petroleum gas sales business operators under Article 9(1) of the Safety Control and Business Control of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act, and the timing of existence of such duty

[2] The case holding that where the defendant, who is a liquefied petroleum gas dealer, stated that he would directly remove the consumption facilities of a consumer without complying with the request of the consumer, and the director would be removed from the place of business cock (the prompt middle valve) without taking any particular safety measures, he violated the duty of safety inspection under Article 9 (1) of the Safety and Business Control of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act

[1] Article 9 (1) of the Safety and Business Control of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act / [2] Article 9 (1) of the Safety and Business Control of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4074 Delivered on April 26, 2002

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Gangwon-won et al.

Suwon District Court Decision 2005No1220 decided Jan. 19, 2006

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principle

A. Article 9(1) of the Safety Control and Business Control of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act provides that when a liquefied petroleum gas dealer supplies liquefied petroleum gas to users, he/she shall conduct safety inspections of facilities for users and guide users to prevent harm under the conditions as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy.

Liquefied petroleum gas has a nature that is easy to inflammable explosion and has a high level of danger due to serious damage caused by explosion accidents, while as a general public, imposes the above strict obligation on a liquefied petroleum gas dealer who supplies gas to general consumers in consideration of the fact that it is difficult to understand the possibility of leakage (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4074, Apr. 26, 2002).

In light of the purport of the above provision, if a liquefied petroleum gas dealer’s duty of safety inspection and guidance is not only immediately before and after concluding a contract for supply of liquefied petroleum gas with a consumer, but also there is a risk of disaster by liquefied petroleum gas, it shall be deemed that the contract is terminated and the consumer continues to exist until the consumer removes the consumption facilities.

B. On the premise of such legal principles, the court below is justifiable to have determined that if the defendant et al., a liquefied petroleum gas dealer, received a call from the non-indicted 204 tenant to remove the consumption facilities installed by the tenant of 204, the non-indicted 1, and the tenant would have failed to comply with the request, and the tenant would be removed from the endcock without taking any particular safety measures, it should be viewed as violating the safety inspection obligation under the above provision.

The court below did not err in interpreting and applying Article 9(1) of the Safety and Business Management of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act.

2. On the assertion of violation of the rules of evidence

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, it is not deemed that there was a violation of the rules of evidence in the fact-finding as stated in the judgment of the court below, and even if the defendant et al. talked with the same purport as that of the non-indicted in the grounds of appeal, it is difficult to view that it fulfilled the duty of safety inspection as a liquefied

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)