손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
1. The reasons why the party members of the court of first instance should explain this case are the reasons why the defendant added the following judgments as to the matters alleged in the court below and the court of first instance, and therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) As to Defendant B, Defendant B did not properly perform the duty of safety protection, such as making safety devices, such as safety features, safety caps, and extension valves at the time of the instant accident, and providing safety education formally. 2) As to Defendant C, Defendant C subcontracted electrical construction to Nonparty I Co., Ltd.; and I subcontracted to Nonparty C’s electrical construction; while performing construction works to seal electricity from Han electric poles at the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff was reduced to the wind that caused the instant accident to be carried out by erroneously installing metal removal pipes and making it available.
However, Defendant C is liable to compensate for damages suffered by the Plaintiff in accordance with the employer's responsibility, because Defendant C had a position to specifically direct and supervise I, which is the subcontractor.
B. In order to recognize liability for damages to an employer for reasons of violating the duty of protection of judgment as to Defendant B’s assertion, the accident must be related to the employee’s work, and it should be predicted or predicted that the accident would normally occur. The predictability should be determined by taking into account the time and place of the accident, the offender’s ability to separate the offender, the offender’s personality and conduct, the relation between the perpetrator and the victim, and other various circumstances.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Da56734, Jul. 27, 2001). In light of these legal principles, the instant accident occurred in metal pipes attached to Hanju when the Plaintiff moves to Hanju, thereby causing a fall accident.