[구상금등청구사건][하집1986(1),280]
Whether a landowner can be held liable for the user on the ground of the negligence of the Pocles articles that the owner of the land performed the land excavation work by directly directing and supervising the Pocles attached to the articles.
A landowner who directly directs and supervises the Pokes with the attachment of the article to carry out the land excavation work shall not be held liable to the owner of the Pokes on the ground of the negligence of the Pokes according to his or her unfair work instruction.
Article 756 of the Civil Act
Freeboard Doctrine
Choi Dong-dong et al. and one other
1. The plaintiff shall pay to the plaintiff 3,700,000 won with 3,00,000 won with 3,000,000 won with 25% interest per annum from October 16, 1985 to the full payment day.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants.
3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.
The same shall apply to the order.
Defendant 1’s remaining 4% of the above 5th anniversary of the death of Nonparty 1, Defendant 2’s remaining 5th of the above 5th of the death of Nonparty 1, Defendant 1’s 5th of the above 5th of the above 5th of the 1st of the death of Nonparty 1, Nonparty 2’s remaining 5th of the above 5th of the 1st of the death of Nonparty 1, Nonparty 2’s remaining 6th of the 5th of the above 1st of the 1st of the 5th of the 5th of the above 1st of the 5th of the death of Nonparty 1, and the 10th of the above 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 5th of the above 1st of the 1st of the 5th of the above 1st of the 1st of the 5th of the above 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the above 5th of the death of the 1st of the deceased.
According to the above facts, the accident of this case was caused by the accident of this case since the last order of this case was contracted to the plaintiff at KRW 1,500,000,00, and the construction was completed by directly supervising the plaintiff's construction of the housing site preparation work, which is an engineer at the site and at KRW 100,00,000, and the last order of this case was over 100,000,000, in order to create the housing site to the maximum extent possible, and the construction was performed by supervising the defendant's construction work, which is an engineer at the bar, and it was caused by an unfair work order. In the accident, the negligence according to the defendant's last order of this case, which is an engineer at the bar, was there a conflict of negligence according to the defendant's unfair work order of this case. For this reason, the accident of this case is externally responsible for the user of the defendant's housing site, and since the accident of this case is reasonable to bear the duty of the defendant's maximum construction work in accordance with the defendant's order of this case.
In the above accident, the plaintiff asserts that at least 3,00,00 won of the above portion of the defendants' liability is to be borne by the defendants, and that at least 3,00,000 won of the above portion of the defendant's liability is to be borne by the defendant's 1,50,000 won of the above construction cost and 600,000 won of the 1,50,000 won of the above construction cost and 70,000 won of the 1,50,000 won of the 1,00 won of the 1,50,000 won of the 1,000 won of the above 30,000 won of the 30,000 won of the defendant's 4,000 won of the above 1,00 won of the 30,000 won of the above 3,00,000 won of the above 1,000 won of the above 3,00 won of the above 10.
Thus, the defendant Choi Dong-dong is obligated to pay 3,700,000 won for the plaintiff's claim and 600,000 won for the remainder of the construction and 100,000 won for the rent for the plaintiff, and the defendant Cho Jong-dong is the next day for the delivery of the plaintiff's claim and 3,000,000 won for the plaintiff's claim and 3,00,000 won for each of them, and 2,5% for each of them from October 16, 1985 to the full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants who seek the performance of the above obligation is justified, and as to the burden of litigation expenses, Article 89 and Article 93 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be applied to the provisional execution declaration, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the court below, by applying Article 6 of the above Special Act.
Judges (Presiding Judge)