최준규, "임차목적물에 발생한 원인불명의 화재로 인한 임차인의 책임", 일감부동산법학, 17권 (2018), pp. 79-118.
<국문초록>
대상판결은, 임차목적물에 발생한 원인불명의 화재로 임대인이 소유한 임차외 건물부분에 대하여 손해가 발생한 경우, 임차인이 보존·관리의무를 위반하여 화재가 발생한 원인을 제공하는 등 화재 발생과 관련된 임차인의 계약상 의무 위반이 있었음이 증명되어야, 임차인이 임차외 건물부분의 손해에 대하여 채무불이행으로 인한 손해배상책임을 부담한다고 판시하였다. 대상판결에 따르면 임차인이 지배·관리하는 영역에서 화재가 발생 하였지만 화재발생의 원인이 밝혀지지 않은 경우, 임차인의 임대인에 대한 채무불이행책임은 구획화된다. 즉, 임차인은 임차건물 부분에 대한 임대인의 손해에 관해서는 채무불이행으로 인한 손해배상책임을 부담하고, 임차외 건물부분에 대한 임대인의 손해에 관해서는 채무불이행으로 인한 손해배상책임을 부담하지 않는다. 필자는 대상판결의 입장이 다음 세 가지 이유에서 타당하다고 생각 한다. 첫째, 임차인의 지배·관리영역에서 화재가 발생하였다는 이유만으로 임차목적물의 훼손에 관한 임차인의 과실을 의제하는 이유는, 임차인 자신이 지배·관리하는 영역에 대해서는 임차인이 사실상 무과실책임 또는 위험책임을 부담하는 것이 공평하기 때문이다. 그러나 이러한 의제된 과실을 근거로 임차인이 지배·관리하지 않는 임차외 건물부분에 대해서까지 임차인에게 손해배상책임을 지우는 것은 법적 의제의 취지와 맞지 않고, 임차인에게 지나치게 가혹하다. 둘째, 임차외 건물부분이 임대인 소유인지, 제3자 소유인지라는 우연한 사정에 따라 임차인의 배상책임 유무가 달라지는 것은 합리적이지 않다. 대상판결에 따르면 이러한 불합리한 결론을 피할 수 있다. 셋째, 임차외 건물부분에 관한 위험은 원칙적으로 그 부분을 지배·관리하는 소유자가 부담하는 것이 가장 효율적이고 공평하다.
<Abstract>
The recent Korean Supreme Court en banc Decision, May 18, 2017, 2012Da86895, 86901 ruled that, the lessee is liable to compensate the lessor for ‘contractual damages’ to the non-leased part of the leased building from the fire of unknown cause in the leased part of the building owned by lessor (lessee’s contractual liability), if the following conditions are met: (a) if a contractual breach on the part of a lessee, such as providing the cause of a fire by failing to preserve and manage the leased object, has been proven; and (b) if there is reasonable causation between the contractual breach and the damages incurred to the non-leased part. According to this ruling, when the fire accident of unknown cause occurred in the leased portion and the fire damaged not only the leased part but also the non-leased part of the leased building owned by lessor, the lessee’s contractual liabilities to the lessor can be compartmentalized. The lessee is certain to assume the compensation liability for contractual damages to the leased part, but may not be liable for contractual damages to the non-leased part. I think that this ruling is quite reasonable and fair for the following grounds. First, when the cause of fire was not identified and there may be possible and competing several causes of fire, the lessee’s contractual negligence nevertheless can be considered to exist, but at the same time the lessee’s negligence about tort liability may be considered not to exist. This seemingly odd and contradictory legal proposition can be justified, because the leased part is under the lessee’s exclusive control. Therefore, the lessee should actually bear ‘no-fault liability’ or ‘strict liability’ for the leased part. In such case the lessee’s contractual negligence may not be a natural and proved-by evidence one, but legally-constructed one. If we admit lessee’s liability for the non-leased part only on the ground of such legally-constructed negligence, this outcome would run counter to the purpose of the legal construction, and it is too harsh for the lessee, because the non-leased part was not under the lessee’s control and management. So, when it comes to the legal causation, we should take the object of such legal construction into consideration. We should admit the legal causation about the non-leased part, only when the lessee’s contractual negligence is proved by evidence. Second, the legal liability of the lessee should not depend on the ownership of the non-leased part, because the element that who owns the non-leased part at the time of fire accident is accidental, external and irrelevant circumstance to the lessee. When the owner of the non-leased part is not the party of the lease contract. the third party owner can only claim for tort liability (not contractual liability) against the lessee. Then he is certain to lose the case, because the lessee’s negligence about tort liability can not be proved. According to the opinion of the Korean Supreme Court, the lessor can not claim for compensation to the lessee about the non-leased part, if additional concrete circumstances to prove the lessee’s negligence are not confirmed. Therefore under this ruling, not only the lessor but also the third party owner can not get compensation about the non-leased part from the lessee unless additional concrete circumstances about lessee’s negligence are proven. So we can get to the same & non-absurd results. Third, the lessor as the owner of the leased building has superior information about the structure, facilities as well as other necessary matters for the maintenance and control of the non-leased portion of the building, and can manage the non-leased part more efficiently than the lessee. So it is efficient and fair for the lessor to assume the risk of fire accident about the non-leased part.
<주제어>
차 목적물에 발생한 원인불명의 화재 임차 외 건물부분 관련 손해 채무불이행 책임 불법행위 책임 규범의 보호목적 관련성 이론
<Keywords>
Fire of unknown cause in the leased building Damages to the non-leased part of the leased building Compensation liability for contractual damages Tort liability Taking the protective purpose of legal norms seriously
최준규, "임차목적물에 발생한 원인불명의 화재로 인한 임차인의 책임", 일감부동산법학, 17권 (2018), pp. 79-118.
<국문초록>
대상판결은, 임차목적물에 발생한 원인불명의 화재로 임대인이 소유한 임차외 건물부분에 대하여 손해가 발생한 경우, 임차인이 보존·관리의무를 위반하여 화재가 발생한 원인을 제공하는 등 화재 발생과 관련된 임차인의 계약상 의무 위반이 있었음이 증명되어야, 임차인이 임차외 건물부분의 손해에 대하여 채무불이행으로 인한 손해배상책임을 부담한다고 판시하였다. 대상판결에 따르면 임차인이 지배·관리하는 영역에서 화재가 발생 하였지만 화재발생의 원인이 밝혀지지 않은 경우, 임차인의 임대인에 대한 채무불이행책임은 구획화된다. 즉, 임차인은 임차건물 부분에 대한 임대인의 손해에 관해서는 채무불이행으로 인한 손해배상책임을 부담하고, 임차외 건물부분에 대한 임대인의 손해에 관해서는 채무불이행으로 인한 손해배상책임을 부담하지 않는다. 필자는 대상판결의 입장이 다음 세 가지 이유에서 타당하다고 생각 한다. 첫째, 임차인의 지배·관리영역에서 화재가 발생하였다는 이유만으로 임차목적물의 훼손에 관한 임차인의 과실을 의제하는 이유는, 임차인 자신이 지배·관리하는 영역에 대해서는 임차인이 사실상 무과실책임 또는 위험책임을 부담하는 것이 공평하기 때문이다. 그러나 이러한 의제된 과실을 근거로 임차인이 지배·관리하지 않는 임차외 건물부분에 대해서까지 임차인에게 손해배상책임을 지우는 것은 법적 의제의 취지와 맞지 않고, 임차인에게 지나치게 가혹하다. 둘째, 임차외 건물부분이 임대인 소유인지, 제3자 소유인지라는 우연한 사정에 따라 임차인의 배상책임 유무가 달라지는 것은 합리적이지 않다. 대상판결에 따르면 이러한 불합리한 결론을 피할 수 있다. 셋째, 임차외 건물부분에 관한 위험은 원칙적으로 그 부분을 지배·관리하는 소유자가 부담하는 것이 가장 효율적이고 공평하다.<Abstract>
The recent Korean Supreme Court en banc Decision, May 18, 2017, 2012Da86895, 86901 ruled that, the lessee is liable to compensate the lessor for ‘contractual damages’ to the non-leased part of the leased building from the fire of unknown cause in the leased part of the building owned by lessor (lessee’s contractual liability), if the following conditions are met: (a) if a contractual breach on the part of a lessee, such as providing the cause of a fire by failing to preserve and manage the leased object, has been proven; and (b) if there is reasonable causation between the contractual breach and the damages incurred to the non-leased part. According to this ruling, when the fire accident of unknown cause occurred in the leased portion and the fire damaged not only the leased part but also the non-leased part of the leased building owned by lessor, the lessee’s contractual liabilities to the lessor can be compartmentalized. The lessee is certain to assume the compensation liability for contractual damages to the leased part, but may not be liable for contractual damages to the non-leased part. I think that this ruling is quite reasonable and fair for the following grounds. First, when the cause of fire was not identified and there may be possible and competing several causes of fire, the lessee’s contractual negligence nevertheless can be considered to exist, but at the same time the lessee’s negligence about tort liability may be considered not to exist. This seemingly odd and contradictory legal proposition can be justified, because the leased part is under the lessee’s exclusive control. Therefore, the lessee should actually bear ‘no-fault liability’ or ‘strict liability’ for the leased part. In such case the lessee’s contractual negligence may not be a natural and proved-by evidence one, but legally-constructed one. If we admit lessee’s liability for the non-leased part only on the ground of such legally-constructed negligence, this outcome would run counter to the purpose of the legal construction, and it is too harsh for the lessee, because the non-leased part was not under the lessee’s control and management. So, when it comes to the legal causation, we should take the object of such legal construction into consideration. We should admit the legal causation about the non-leased part, only when the lessee’s contractual negligence is proved by evidence. Second, the legal liability of the lessee should not depend on the ownership of the non-leased part, because the element that who owns the non-leased part at the time of fire accident is accidental, external and irrelevant circumstance to the lessee. When the owner of the non-leased part is not the party of the lease contract. the third party owner can only claim for tort liability (not contractual liability) against the lessee. Then he is certain to lose the case, because the lessee’s negligence about tort liability can not be proved. According to the opinion of the Korean Supreme Court, the lessor can not claim for compensation to the lessee about the non-leased part, if additional concrete circumstances to prove the lessee’s negligence are not confirmed. Therefore under this ruling, not only the lessor but also the third party owner can not get compensation about the non-leased part from the lessee unless additional concrete circumstances about lessee’s negligence are proven. So we can get to the same & non-absurd results. Third, the lessor as the owner of the leased building has superior information about the structure, facilities as well as other necessary matters for the maintenance and control of the non-leased portion of the building, and can manage the non-leased part more efficiently than the lessee. So it is efficient and fair for the lessor to assume the risk of fire accident about the non-leased part.<주제어>
차 목적물에 발생한 원인불명의 화재 임차 외 건물부분 관련 손해 채무불이행 책임 불법행위 책임 규범의 보호목적 관련성 이론
<Keywords>
Fire of unknown cause in the leased building Damages to the non-leased part of the leased building Compensation liability for contractual damages Tort liability Taking the protective purpose of legal norms seriously