[손해배상][공1985.8.15.(758),1053]
Whether the director of the mining center is responsible for the direction and supervision of the security officer for the construction, maintenance and operation of electric structures within the mining station.
According to Articles 40(1), 41, 43, 49, and 50(4) of the Electric Utility Act and Article 50 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the responsibility of supervising the construction, maintenance, and operation of the electric structures for private use can be known to the security officer appointed by the installer of the electric structures for private use. Thus, in the case where the deceased, who is an electrical owner, is a security officer in the mining station and is killed due to the sense that he has been engaged in the operation without putting a power plant location in the process of connecting the electric wires, the issue of whether to take a power plant location for security is a security officer, and the deceased, who is an electrical owner, is not subject to the direction of the head of the mining office, and the date of determination under his responsibility is not subject to the direction of the head of the mining office. Therefore, it cannot be said that the head of the mining office failed to instruct him to get off the power plant location.
Articles 40(1), 41, 43, 49, and 51(4) of the Electric Utility Act; Article 50 of the Enforcement Rule of the Electric Utility Act; Article 750 of the Civil Act
Plaintiff 1 and five others
Attorney Kim J-jin, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee
Gwangju High Court Decision 84Na70 delivered on January 18, 1985
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.
The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.
1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the above non-party 1 liable for damages suffered by the deceased as the above non-party 2's tort since the above non-party 1 got electricity from 22,90 V to 600 volts in the defendant company's ○○ Mining Complex by cutting the electric wires passing through the 6th electric poles of the above mining station on September 16, 1982 when installing a water storage station extension work in accordance with the order of the non-party 1 in the above mining station, and cutting them back through the 6th electric poles of the above mining station and connecting them again after work. Since the above non-party 1 got electricity from 220 volts in order to prevent accidents in advance, the court below neglected the duty of care to connect the above electric wires to the above mining station's official duties, and ordered the non-party 2 to connect them with the above electric wires to the above non-party 16th day prior to work.
2. According to the provisions of Articles 40(1), 41, 43, 49, and 51(4) of the Electric Utility Act and Article 50 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, an operator of the electric utility business or an installer of the electric structure for private use shall appoint a security officer for each of the fields of electricity, civil engineering, and machinery and technology to supervise the construction, maintenance, and operation of the structure for the electric utility business or the installation of the electric structure for private use. The person engaged in the construction, maintenance, and operation of the said structure shall comply with the security instructions given by the person in charge of security. Thus, the responsibility for the supervision of the security for the construction, maintenance, and operation of the said electric structure can be known to the person in charge of security.
However, according to the records (e.g., evidence 1), it is recognized that the above deceased non-party 2 is a class 2 electrical engineer, who was appointed as a security officer of the defendant management ○○ Mining Center under the Electric Utility Act and has been engaged in the work of electricity as an electrical supervisor. Thus, the security supervision responsibility for the construction, maintenance and operation of the electric structure in the above mining center is against the above deceased, and it is difficult to view that the above non-party 1, the head of the above mining office, is responsible for the direction and supervision of the above deceased, who is a security officer for the construction, maintenance and operation
Thus, in connection with the connection work of the instant cutting wire, it is a security officer, and it is not a matter to be instructed and supervised by Nonparty 1, the head of the mining office, even though the deceased, who is the electrical owner, is determined under his responsibility, and is not a matter to be instructed and supervised by Nonparty 1. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that Nonparty 1’s failure to give instructions to get off the power plant location is the negligence of the person.
Ultimately, the judgment of the court below that deemed the above non-party 1 liable for negligence shall not be deemed to have committed an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles on the liability for negligence with respect to the electrical structure, and this constitutes a ground for reversal of Article 12(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion,
3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)