손해배상(산)
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is as follows: "The defendant caused damages to the plaintiffs by causing them to commit the following illegal acts. Thus, the plaintiff A is obligated to pay KRW 90,000,000, and 3,000,000, and 3,000,000, and 3,000,00,000, and 3,000,00,000,000, respectively, to the plaintiff C, D, E, F, and G, and damages for delay for each of the above money." The plaintiffs' repeated arguments made in the court of the first instance are as stated in the reasoning for the judgment except for the following Paragraph 2. Thus, they are cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. The summary of the plaintiffs' assertion is merely entrusting the defendant with a labor contract for the roof replacement work for the defendant's stables without reservation of specific instructions and supervision through K. Thus, the owner or possessor of a structure, etc. is obligated to install safety facilities, such as a work plate or safety net, so that the roof replacement work for the defendant's stables can be safely conducted, or supervise and supervise the plaintiff A so that the plaintiff A may not be faced with a crash accident by warning the risks caused by the deterioration of the stable. In violation of this provision, the plaintiff A was obliged to remove the defendant's roof of the asbestos slate and then caused a fall accident.
Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for damages caused by illegal acts.
B. In the case of a labor contract, such as the case where a person who enters into a contract ordering a contractor to conduct a specific act or awarding a specific project without reservation of specific direction and supervision right, even if the person who enters into a contract is the contractor, the person who enters into a contract is liable for compensation as an employer (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da37676, Nov. 10, 2005; Supreme Court Decision 96Da53086, Apr. 25, 1997). In this case, the person who enters into a contract is the actual employer.