2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

3. A provisional execution may be carried out with respect to the part which has not been sentenced provisionally by the original judgment; and

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and provisional execution declaration

Litigation costs shall be assessed against the plaintiff at all of the first and second instances.

If Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 6, Eul evidence No. 13, Eul evidence No. 15-2, Eul evidence No. 15-2, and Eul evidence No. 1 which can be recognized as being genuine by some testimony of the non-party No. 1, the above witness and the non-party No. 2 and 3 of the court below's testimony and arguments were examined without dispute over the formation of the new apartment construction work in Incheon, the defendant specified only the steel-frame assembly work among the whole apartment construction work, and the construction period was from July 1, 1978 to May 10, 1979, the plaintiff should have the non-party No. 33,231,00, and the non-party No. 1 provided the non-party No. 3 with the remaining materials that the non-party No. 1 had employed by the defendant's non-party No. 3 with the duty of care and supervision for the non-party No. 1 to the above construction work.

The defendant asserts that there was no liability to compensate for the injury inflicted upon the plaintiff since he contracted the above construction work to the non-party 3. Thus, since the contract does not have any relationship between the contractor and the contractor, the contractor does not have any liability to compensate for the damage to his employee, but in the case of a contract for labor, such as where the contractor directs a specific act during the entire construction work or awarding a contract for a specific project, the contractor shall be liable to compensate for the damage to his employee (see Supreme Court Decision 65Da1688, Oct. 19, 1965). According to the above facts acknowledged above, the defendant has been entrusted to the non-party 3 by specifying only the steel-frame assembly work out of the whole apartment construction work, and some of the required materials are provided to the non-party. Since the non-party 3 was under the direction of construction work, the non-party 3 is not the defendant's contractor but the non-party 3's employee

Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for damages sustained by the plaintiff due to the tort against the non-party 3, his employee, and according to each of the above evidence, when the plaintiff requests the non-party 3 to keep a security light or wear it or works without wearing it for his own safety, the other non-party 3 shall be deemed to be a full face, and when the other non-party 3 works without wearing it, he shall return the dog, and shall not enter the snow even if the hing of the hing is protruding, but the plaintiff's negligence is recognized as being negligent, and such negligence shall be considered in determining the amount of the defendant's compensation for damages.

2. Property damage; and

If Gap evidence No. 9, Gap evidence No. 10, Gap evidence No. 12, and Eul evidence No. 14 without dispute in its establishment showed the appraisal result of the appraiser Cho Jong-chul and all purport of the parties' arguments, the plaintiff is a healthy male who was born on February 28, 1954 and left 24 years old and 11 years old at the time of the accident, and the average female life is 46 years old, and if it was not registered as the real name of the accident, the average female life of the plaintiff is within 46 years and 55 years old under the empirical rule, and it can be worked as the steel No. 25 days per month for at least 30 years until the end of the age of 55, and it cannot be acknowledged that the plaintiff's claim for wage No. 20 days old since the real name of the bill suffered by the accident and 0.3 days old, and it cannot be acknowledged that the plaintiff's claim for wage No. 57 days old cannot be acknowledged as the average wage for 30.5 days old.

Therefore, according to the above facts, even if the plaintiff lost the income of 2,379,00 won (7,930 x 25 x 12) that could have been earned every 30 years from the accident, and is engaged in daily work in rural communities, it cannot be obtained only from the income of 47,522 won (4,302 x 25 x 12 x 12 x 63). Thus, the plaintiff suffered losses each year from 1,901,478 won (2,370,00-47,522) (2), which shall be deducted from the middle interest rate of 5% per annum, as at the time of the accident, 34,282,317 (1,901, x 478 x 20039). Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay damages to the plaintiff as part of 200,700,000 won.

3. Consolation money.

Since it is clear in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff suffered from mental suffering on the real name of the unit due to the accident, the defendant must do so. The defendant should pay 500,000 won to the plaintiff, considering the circumstance and result of the accident, degree of negligence of both parties, and overall circumstances.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of 13,175,200 won (12,675,200 +50,000) and the amount of 5% per annum of civil law from February 17, 1980 to the date of the occurrence of the accident. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable only within the scope of the above recognition and the remainder of the claim shall be dismissed. The judgment of the court below that forms the same conclusion is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as well as the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 95, 89, and 199 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the burden of appeal costs and the declaration of provisional execution.

Judges Park Jae-chul (Presiding Judge)