The special agreement that the contractor is liable for damages to a third party between the contractor and the contractor is merely an agreement on the internal burden of damages and it is not effective to exempt the contractor from the liability of the contractor for the third party.

The special agreement between the contractor and the contractor that the contractor shall be liable for the damages to a third party is nothing more than the internal burden of damages and it is not effective to exempt the subcontractor from the liability of the third party.

Article 760(1) of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 69Na2619 delivered on March 10, 1972, Seoul High Court Decision 69Na2619 delivered on March 10, 1972

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, where construction work is executed on the premise that there is the same risk as the original judgment in the construction work, the court below should consider necessary security measures such as breaking the ground floor of the land owned by the plaintiff before destroying the underground room, but the ground floor of the land owned by the plaintiff has not been covered by any specific security measures, and the construction work has been destroyed 4 meters away from the ground surface of the land owned by the plaintiff, and the construction work has only been executed on the ground that there was only a difference between the above construction work and the construction work's inner structure and the building's inner structure, and the construction work's inner structure has no error of law as stated in the judgment of the court below because the construction work's internal structure and the construction work's inner structure had no error of law as stated in the judgment of the court below for the reason that the construction work's inner structure and the construction work's inner structure had no error in the construction work's execution of security measures as stated in the above order of the construction work's supervisor and the construction work's order.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed by the assent of all participating judges. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Han-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court