[2] The purport of Article 29(1) of the former Occupational Safety and Health Act / The meaning of “business conducted in the same place” under the same provision, and whether it is necessary to extend the same time beyond the identity of the place (negative)

[2] Article 29(1) of the former Industrial Safety and Health Act (amended by Act No. 11882, Jun. 12, 2013; hereinafter the same) provides that a business owner who has given a contract for a part of a project is obligated to take measures to prevent industrial accidents that may occur at the workplace under his/her management and its contractor’s work at the same place, and the same time and identity cannot be viewed as necessary for the same time besides the identity of the place of work.

In the case of a contract for work, a contractor does not have a duty to take safety measures necessary for the prevention of accidents in connection with the contractor's work, but a contractor has a duty to take safety measures necessary for the prevention of accidents in special circumstances such as the contractor's specific duty to manage and supervise the contractor's work or the contractor specifically instructs and supervises the contractor's work (see Supreme Court Decisions 95Do2263, Jan. 26, 1996; 2008Do7030, May 28, 2009, etc.).

Article 29(3) of the former Occupational Safety and Health Act (amended by Act No. 11882, Jun. 12, 2013; hereinafter the same) provides that "a business owner under paragraph (1) shall take measures to prevent industrial accidents prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor when his/her employees work in a place where there is an industrial accident risk prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor." "a business owner under paragraph (1)" refers to a business owner prescribed by Presidential Decree among businesses for which part of the business performed at the same place is separated and awarded a contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do4802, Oct. 28, 2005; 2008Do7030, May 28, 2009).

Article 29(1) of the former Industrial Safety and Health Act provides that a business owner who has awarded a contract for a part of a project shall take measures to prevent industrial accidents that may occur at the workplace under his/her control, such as a contractor who performs a part of the project under a subcontract, and who has a power or duty to coordinate the overall process of the project, and Article 29(1) of the former Industrial Safety and Health Act provides that a business owner shall take measures to prevent industrial accidents that may occur at the workplace under his/her control. Article 29(1) of the former Industrial Safety and Health Act provides that a business owner and his/her contractor shall perform

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that Defendant 2 Company included in the business owner under Article 29(3) of the former Occupational Safety and Health Act, and proximate causal relation between Defendant 1’s breach of duty and the victims’ death or injury was recognized. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Sang-ok (Presiding Justice)