Open Decision Ledger · Civil procedure & enforcement
Degree of proof of facts in a civil action and the plaintiff's burden of proof as to the cause of a fire
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, Oct. 28, 2010, 2008Da6755 (judgment)
Case name: 손해배상(기)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Can the fact of the cause of a fire be regarded as proven merely on the ground that there is a substantial likelihood, giving rise to suspicion, that the fire was caused by a cigarette lighter of the defendant's employees?
Holding
It cannot. Proof of facts in a civil action requires that all Evidence be comprehensively examined in the light of the rules of experience so as to establish a high degree of probability at which an ordinary person would have no doubt, and the burden of proving that the cause of the fire lay in the negligence of the defendant's employees rested on the plaintiff; accordingly, the court below, which rejected the plaintiff's assertions, was affirmed.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
특별한 사정이 없는 한 경험칙에 비추어 모든 증거를 종합 검토하여 어떠한 사실이 있었다는 점을 시인할 수 있는 고도의 개연성을 증명하는 것이고, 그 판정은 통상인이라면 의심을 품지 않을 정도일 것을 필요로 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Unless there are special circumstances, it is proof that, by comprehensively examining all evidence in light of rules of experience, one may acknowledge that a certain fact existed, with a high degree of probability, and such determination requires being to such a degree that an ordinary person would not harbor doubt.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 모두 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed.
Form of the test
Existing test applied Read from the decision
원고의 주장을 배척한 원심판단을 수긍한 사례
Unofficial English translation
A case affirming the court below's determination rejecting the plaintiff's argument
Factors
- 경험칙에 비추어 모든 증거를 종합 검토하여
- 시인할 수 있는 고도의 개연성
- 통상인이라면 의심을 품지 않을 정도
- 화재가 담뱃불로 발생하였을 상당한 가능성이 있다고 의심되나
Unofficial English translation
• by comprehensively examining all evidence in light of rules of experience
• a high degree of probability sufficient to acknowledge
• to such a degree that an ordinary person would not harbor doubt
• although there is suspicion of a considerable possibility that the fire was caused by a cigarette butt
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1990. 6. 26. 선고 89다카7730 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 89DaKa7730 decided June 26, 1990
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1990. 6. 26. 선고 89다카7730 판결(공1990, 1558), 대법원 2000. 2. 25. 선고 99다65097 판결
Burden of proof
The party asserting Stated in the decision
화재의 원인이 갑 회사 직원들의 과실에 있음을 증명할 책임은 원고에게 있다는 이유로, 화재가 갑 회사 직원들이 피운 담뱃불로 인한 것임을 전제로 하는 원고의 주장을 배척한 원심판단을 수긍한 사례.
Unofficial English translation
A case affirming the court below's determination rejecting the plaintiff's argument premised on the fact that the fire was caused by cigarette butts smoked by Company A's employees, on the ground that the burden of proving that the cause of the fire lay in the negligence of Company A's employees rests with the plaintiff.
Open question and revisit condition
At what point can it be said that a high degree of probability has been reached where indirect facts, such as the low likelihood of other causes such as an electrical short circuit or arson, accumulate to a certain degree?
This reading will be re-examined if a subsequent judgment takes a different view of the degree of proof in a civil action or of the allocation of the burden of proof in cases of accidental fire.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
When compared with an independent reading by a different family of AI (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the initial reading, all 8 axes matched.
Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The court below, citing statements that the defendant's employees habitually smoked in the coating room and that a fire had once started in a paper cup used as an ashtray, smoking approximately 1 hour before the fire, and the low likelihood of an electrical short circuit or arson by a third party, among other matters, held that although there was a substantial likelihood, giving rise to suspicion, that the fire was caused by a cigarette lighter, that alone was insufficient to recognize that the fire was caused by a cigarette lighter of the defendant's employees, and rejected the plaintiffs' assertions.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court, viewing the holding of the court below as proper in light of the standard of proof in a civil action, namely proof of a high degree of probability, stated that there was no violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence and no misunderstanding of the legal principle on causation. Absent any Evidence to recognize negligence on the part of the defendant's employees, the grounds for final appeal, which were premised on the application of the Act on Liability for Accidental Fire as wholly amended on May 8, 2009, were likewise not accepted.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which negligence on the part of the defendant is specifically revealed by direct evidence as to the cause of the fire or by the results of expert examination
- A case in which the statute contains provisions that presume negligence or lessen the victim's burden of proof
- A procedure that requires proof to the extent of excluding reasonable doubt, as in a criminal trial
Record verification notes
Before asserting the same conclusion, one should check whether the indirect facts submitted by the plaintiff in fact exclude causes other than a cigarette lighter, and whether any separate liability provision that alters the burden of proof is at issue.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 민사소송에서 필요한 ‘사실의 증명’의 정도 [2] 화재가 담뱃불로 발생하였을 상당한 가능성이 있다고 의심되나 이러한 의심만으로는 갑 회사 직원들이 피운 담뱃불로 인한 것이라고 인정하기에 부족하고, 아울러 화재의 원인이 갑 회사 직원들의 과실에 있음을 증명할 책임은 원고에게 있다는 이유로, 화재가 갑 회사 직원들이 피운 담뱃불로 인한 것임을 전제로 하는 원고의 주장을 배척한 원심판단을 수긍한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] The degree of 'proof of facts' required in a civil action [2] A case affirming the court below's determination rejecting the plaintiff's argument premised on the fact that the fire was caused by cigarette butts smoked by Company A's employees, on the ground that although there is suspicion of a considerable possibility that the fire was caused by a cigarette butt, such suspicion alone is insufficient to find that it was caused by the cigarette butts smoked by Company A's employees, and also the burden of proving that the cause of the fire lay in the negligence of Company A's employees rests with the plaintiff
Summary of the holding
[1] 민사소송에서 사실의 증명은 추호의 의혹도 있어서는 아니 되는 자연과학적 증명은 아니나, 특별한 사정이 없는 한 경험칙에 비추어 모든 증거를 종합 검토하여 어떠한 사실이 있었다는 점을 시인할 수 있는 고도의 개연성을 증명하는 것이고, 그 판정은 통상인이라면 의심을 품지 않을 정도일 것을 필요로 한다. [2] 화재가 담뱃불로 발생하였을 상당한 가능성이 있다고 의심되나 이러한 의심만으로는 갑 회사 직원들이 피운 담뱃불로 인한 것이라고 인정하기에 부족하고, 아울러 화재의 원인이 갑 회사 직원들의 과실에 있음을 증명할 책임은 원고에게 있다는 이유로, 화재가 갑 회사 직원들이 피운 담뱃불로 인한 것임을 전제로 하는 원고의 주장을 배척한 원심판단을 수긍한 사례.
Order
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고들이 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The appeal costs shall be borne by the plaintiffs.
Provisions referred to
[1] 민사소송법 제288조 [2] 민사소송법 제288조
Read 2026-10-16 · Cross-read 2026-10-16. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger