CONTENTS
- 1. The Case as Organized by the Damages Specialist Attorney
- 2. The Assistance Provided by the Damages Specialist Attorney
- - Structuring the Legal Reasoning Around the Requirements for Establishing Structure Liability Under the Civil Act
- - Distinguishing the Assertion of a Building Standard Violation from Civil Liability for Damages
- - Denying Causation Based on Objective Evidence Regarding the Cause of the Accident
- - Setting Legal Limits on the Scope of the Heirs' Liability for Damages
- - Structural Use of the Results of the Prior Criminal and Civil Judgments
- 3. The Case Result Achieved Through the Assistance of the Damages Specialist Attorney
- - The Concept of Damages and the Statutory Basis for the Claim
- - Procedure for a Damages Lawsuit and Methods of Response for the Defendant
- - Daeryun Law Firm's One-Stop Response
1. The Case as Organized by the Damages Specialist Attorney
The family of the client who sought the damages specialist attorney was a building owner who, during his lifetime, owned and managed a small commercial building.
The building consisted of above-ground and underground structures, and the basement level was operated as a public bathhouse through a lease.
The case began one day when a visitor using the facility lost their balance and fell while descending the stairs to the basement.
The visitor was immediately transported to a hospital, but the condition worsened during treatment, and the visitor ultimately died.
After the accident, the bereaved family first filed a criminal complaint and a civil claim for damages against the bathhouse operator, but, during the investigation and trial, the operator's negligence in management was not acknowledged, and the claims were not accepted.
Nevertheless, the bereaved family expanded the scope of liability and, on the ground that the building's owner at the time of the accident, namely a member of the client's family, had already died, again filed a claim for damages against the clients, who were that owner's heirs.
The bereaved family argued that the railing installed on the basement stairs did not meet the standards required under the building-related laws, and that, because the structural standards were not properly observed during a past interior renovation, a defect existed in the installation or preservation of the structure.
The clients, who had never directly managed or remodeled the accident site, found it difficult even to understand whether they should bear a large damages liability for an accident that had already occurred merely because they were “heirs,” and so they came to seek out the damages specialist attorney of Daeryun Law Firm.
2. The Assistance Provided by the Damages Specialist Attorney
The damages specialist attorney provided assistance to the clients as follows.
Structuring the Legal Reasoning Around the Requirements for Establishing Structure Liability Under the Civil Act
(2) The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall apply mutatis mutandis where there is a defect in the planting or preservation of trees.
(3) In the cases of the preceding two paragraphs, the possessor or owner may exercise a right of indemnity against the person responsible for the cause of the damage.
The Daeryun damages specialist attorney defined this matter as a structure liability case under Article 758 of the Civil Act, and established a defense strategy on the premise that structure liability is not established merely by an assertion of a structural defect, and that the defect of the structure, the occurrence of damage, and the proximate causation between the defect and the damage must all be proven.
In particular, the attorney presented as a key argument the legal principle that the burden of proving the causation between the defect and the accident lies with the plaintiff.
Distinguishing the Assertion of a Building Standard Violation from Civil Liability for Damages
The plaintiff emphasized that the railing did not meet the building standards, but the damages specialist attorney made clear that whether a standard under the Building Act was violated and civil liability for damages must be determined separately.
The attorney persuaded the court on legal grounds that, even if a violation of the structural standards existed, liability for damages could not be acknowledged unless it was proven that the violation was the direct and primary cause of the accident.
Denying Causation Based on Objective Evidence Regarding the Cause of the Accident
The Daeryun damages specialist attorney comprehensively reviewed the CCTV footage, investigation records, and on-site structural materials, and specifically argued that the accident did not originate from the railing structure itself, but was an accident attributable to the loss of balance during the user's walking and to personal carelessness.
Through this, the attorney emphasized that no proximate causation existed between the installation or preservation condition of the structure and the death.
Setting Legal Limits on the Scope of the Heirs' Liability for Damages
The defendants were no more than heirs who had acquired ownership of the building through inheritance after the accident occurred, so the damages specialist attorney made clear that the liability borne by an heir can be acknowledged only to a limited extent within the scope of the inherited property.
In particular, the attorney emphasized that, as long as the individual heirs had not been involved in the management or operation of the facility or in any structural change before the accident occurred, liability for damages could not be expanded merely on the basis of the fact of inheritance.
Structural Use of the Results of the Prior Criminal and Civil Judgments
The damages specialist attorney structurally connected the fact that liability had already not been acknowledged in the criminal and civil proceedings against the facility operator concerning the same accident.
Through this, the attorney persuasively presented to the court the point that holding the building's heirs, who were in a more indirect position, liable was also unjustified as a matter of legal principle.
3. The Case Result Achieved Through the Assistance of the Damages Specialist Attorney
While not excluding the possibility that the basement stairway structure failed to meet some standards, the court determined that the proximate causation legally required between that and the accident was not acknowledged.
Accordingly, the claim for damages against the heirs was dismissed in its entirety, and judgment was rendered ordering that the litigation costs likewise be borne by the plaintiff side.
This is a case in which the damages specialist attorney's defense centered on legal principle prevented excessive liability from being shifted onto the heirs.
The Concept of Damages and the Statutory Basis for the Claim
Damages is a system under which, where a person causes loss to another through an unlawful act or a statutory ground of liability, that loss is compensated in money.
The legal grounds at issue in this case are Article 750 of the Civil Act (liability for tort) and Article 758 of the Civil Act (liability for a defect in the installation or preservation of a structure).
In particular, structure liability is not established automatically by the mere existence of a defect, and the causation with the accident must be strictly proven.
Procedure for a Damages Lawsuit and Methods of Response for the Defendant
Procedure | Content | Key Points of the Defendant's Response |
Filing of the complaint | Filing of the claim for damages | Initial organization of the facts |
Answer | Statement of whether liability is denied | Rebuttal centered on legal principle |
Date for pleading | Organization of the issues | Intensive dispute over causation |
Examination of evidence | Footage, expert appraisal, and the like | Analysis of the cause of the accident |
Judgment | Whether liability is acknowledged | Complete dismissal or reduction of the amount |
Daeryun Law Firm's One-Stop Response
In cases involving building accidents, fatal accidents, and damages where an heir has become the defendant, Daeryun Law Firm has a one-stop response system covering the entire process, from analysis of the cause of the accident to legal response, evidence collection, and the establishment of a trial strategy.
In a damages lawsuit where liability is expanded even to an heir, obtaining the assistance of a damages specialist attorney from the initial stage is the safest and most reliable method of response.
If you need legal assistance in a related case, please proceed with a 🔗legal consultation appointment.
This content is based on actual case studies of Daeryun Law LLC with some adaptations, and the copyright belongs to our firm.
Unauthorized reproduction, duplication, or distribution and other copyright infringements may result in legal action under applicable laws.
