손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Basic Facts
The plaintiff is an employee of C (D) who performed waterproof construction on the roof of Daejeon Jung-gu E (hereinafter referred to as the "instant building") as a waterproof hole, and the defendant is an entrusted management company of the instant building.
On August 18, 2011, the Defendant concluded a construction contract between C and C on the rooftop waterproof Construction Works of the instant building (hereinafter “instant construction”) with a view to KRW 3.2 million (excluding value-added tax).
On September 2, 2011, while carrying out the instant construction, the Plaintiff sustained electric images of both sides, left upper parts, and both sides of water level 2, degree 3, and degree 4 as electric images of both sides, by reducing electric currents flowing around the transformation facilities.
(hereinafter “instant accident” (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”), without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the plaintiff’s assertion to the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant is the manager of the instant building, and the possessor or owner of the transformation facilities which caused the instant accident, and is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages, since the instant accident occurred due to defects in the installation or preservation thereof.
The plaintiff did not have a direct employment relationship with the defendant, but the defendant's employee was under work instruction and management through F, the managing director of the building of this case, and performed the construction of this case.
Therefore, as an employer who controls and manages the Plaintiff’s labor, the Defendant is obligated to take necessary measures, such as improving the physical environment so that the Plaintiff’s provision of labor does not harm life, body, or health.
However, since the defendant neglected the above duty of protection and caused the accident of this case, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages caused by the non-performance of obligation or tort.
In spite of the fact that the construction of this case was conducted in the vicinity of the transformation facilities, the defendant was well aware of the danger of shock.