Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
Proof of a structure defect where the cause of fire is unknown
Supreme Court, July 10, 2019, 2019Da222522 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 구상금
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a fire of unknown cause broke out in a vehicle parked in an apartment underground car park and spread to the vehicle parked behind it, burning it out, must the victim prove that the owner of the first vehicle failed the degree of protective measure generally required by social conventions before that owner may bear liability as the owner of a structure under Article 758(1) of the Civil Act?
Holding
Yes. A defect in the installation or preservation of a structure is the state in which the structure lacks the safety it would normally have for its purpose, and whether that safety is present is judged by whether the installer or keeper took the degree of protective measure generally required by social conventions in proportion to the structure's dangerousness. The burden of proving such a defect lies with the victim. In this case the cause of the fire was not identified, the forensic opinion could not confine the ignition source, and no breach of safety standards or change to the vehicle's structure or equipment was shown, so the failure of the protective measure could not be taken to have been proved.
Points at issue, verbatim
갑이 사회통념상 일반적으로 요구되는 정도의 방호조치의무를 다하지 않았다는 점이 증명되었다고 볼 수 없는데도, 갑이 공작물의 소유자로서 손해배상책임을 부담한다고 본 원심판결에 법리오해의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
A case in which the judgment of the court below holding A liable for damages as the owner of the structure was held erroneous on the ground of misapprehension of legal principles, even though it cannot be regarded as proven that A failed to fulfill the duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required in light of social conventions
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 피고 패소 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울남부지방법원 합의부에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed insofar as it ruled against the defendant, and this part of the case is remanded to the collegiate panel of the Seoul Southern District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
이와 같은 안전성의 구비 여부를 판단함에 있어서는 당해 공작물의 설치·보존자가 그 공작물의 위험성에 비례하여 사회통념상 일반적으로 요구되는 정도의 방호조치의무를 다하였는지 여부를 기준으로 판단하여야 한다
Unofficial English translation
In determining whether such safety is satisfied, the determination must be made on the basis of whether the person who installed or maintains the structure in question has fulfilled the duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required in light of social conventions, in proportion to the danger of the structure
Factors
- 원인불명의 화재가 발생하여
- 불길이 뒤에 주차된 을의 차량까지 옮겨붙어 을의 차량이 전소된 사안에서
- 갑이 사회통념상 일반적으로 요구되는 정도의 방호조치의무를 다하지 않았다는 점이 증명되었다고 볼 수 없는데도
- 갑이 공작물의 소유자로서 손해배상책임을 부담한다고 본 원심판결에 법리오해의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
• a fire of unknown cause broke out and
• in a case where the flames spread to B's vehicle parked behind it, completely destroying B's vehicle,
• even though it cannot be regarded as proven that A failed to fulfill the duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required in light of social conventions,
• a case in which the judgment of the court below holding A liable for damages as the owner of the structure was held erroneous on the ground of misapprehension of legal principles
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2013. 5. 23. 선고 2013다1921 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2013Da1921 decided May 23, 2013
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2013. 5. 23. 선고 2013다1921 판결, 대법원 2017. 8. 18. 선고 2017다218208 판결
Burden of proof
The party asserting Stated in the decision
공작물의 설치·보존상 하자의 존재에 관한 증명책임은 피해자에게 있다
Unofficial English translation
The burden of proof as to the existence of a defect in the installation or maintenance of a structure lies with the victim
Open question and revisit condition
Where the ignition source cannot be confined, what evidence is enough to prove that the owner of the parked vehicle failed the protective measure required in proportion to its dangerousness?
The record of the further hearing at the Seoul Southern District Court, trial division, will show how the victim met the burden in practice. A later Supreme Court decision that alters the criterion of protective measure proportionate to the dangerousness of the structure, or an amendment to Article 758(1) of the Civil Act, would call for this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Elements stated” vs Independent “Existing test applied”
The primary reads the Court as stating the requirement for a defect, while the independent reading applies that standard to the facts, which the judgment does in substance.
갑이 사회통념상 일반적으로 요구되는 정도의 방호조치의무를 다하지 않았다는 점이 증명되었다고 볼 수 없는데도Raw 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 Seoul Southern District Court, in its judgment of 14 February 2019 (2018Na58347), proceeded on the premise that the fire was caused by a defect in the defendant's vehicle and held that the non-party owner of that vehicle, as the owner of a structure, bore liability for damages. That was the reasoning set out in the judgment below.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found that the fire had started about ten hours after the vehicle was normally parked, so ignition from engine overheating was unlikely, that an inspection about a month earlier had found nothing wrong, and that the forensic opinion could not confine the ignition source because the engine bay was badly burned. Since the failure of the protective measure proportionate to the vehicle's dangerousness was not shown to have been proved, deciding liability on the premise of a defect in the defendant's vehicle misapprehended the law on the burden of proving a defect under Article 758(1) of the Civil Act and affected the result, so the part of the judgment in which the defendant lost was reversed and remanded.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the victim proves that the installer or keeper failed the degree of protective measure generally required by social conventions in proportion to the structure's dangerousness.
- A case in which the cause of the fire is identified and it is established that the fire was caused by a defect in the parked vehicle.
- A case in which the vehicle's structure or equipment was changed in breach of its safety standards.
Record verification notes
Set the forensic opinion, the vehicle inspection record and the CCTV material against the file, and check whether the ignition source was confined. Then check what the victim put forward to show that the owner failed the protective measure proportionate to the vehicle's dangerousness, since that burden lies with the victim. The case was remanded to the Seoul Southern District Court, trial division, so the record of the further hearing there will show how that burden is met.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 민법 제758조 제1항에서 말하는 ‘공작물의 설치·보존상 하자’의 의미 및 공작물이 용도에 따라 통상 갖추어야 할 안전성을 갖추고 있는지 판단하는 기준 / 공작물의 설치·보존상 하자의 존재에 관한 증명책임의 소재(=피해자) [2] 갑이 아파트 지하주차장에 주차한 차량에서 원인불명의 화재가 발생하여 불길이 뒤에 주차된 을의 차량까지 옮겨붙어 을의 차량이 전소된 사안에서, 갑이 사회통념상 일반적으로 요구되는 정도의 방호조치의무를 다하지 않았다는 점이 증명되었다고 볼 수 없는데도, 갑이 공작물의 소유자로서 손해배상책임을 부담한다고 본 원심판결에 법리오해의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] The meaning of "a defect in the installation or maintenance of a structure" as used in Article 758 (1) of the Civil Act, and the criteria for determining whether a structure possesses the safety that it should normally have in light of its use / The party bearing the burden of proof as to the existence of a defect in the installation or maintenance of a structure (=the victim) [2] A case in which, in a situation where a fire of unknown cause broke out in a vehicle that A had parked in the underground parking lot of an apartment building and the flames spread to B's vehicle parked behind it, completely destroying B's vehicle, there was a misapprehension of legal principles in the judgment of the court below which held A liable for damages as the owner of the structure, even though it cannot be regarded as proven that A failed to fulfill the duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required in light of social conventions
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
원심판결 중 피고 패소 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울남부지방법원 합의부에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed insofar as it ruled against the defendant, and this part of the case is remanded to the collegiate panel of the Seoul Southern District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 민법 제758조 제1항, 민사소송법 제288조 [2] 민법 제758조 제1항, 민사소송법 제288조
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. 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