Damages Specialist Attorney | Denying the Heirs' Liability and Obtaining “Complete Dismissal” of a 250 Million Won Claim

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.