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.

Basic Facts

The court's explanation on this part is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the use of "Defendant F" in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as "F", and therefore, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Plaintiff’s assertion

The person who intends to perform the instant construction project shall register the instant construction project pursuant to Article 9(1) of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry (amended by Act No. 13469, Aug. 11, 2015; hereinafter “former Framework Act on the Construction Industry”), but the Defendant contracted the instant construction project to F, other than the registered constructor.

Therefore, the defendant is liable as a contractor for the case of gross negligence on the contract.

Judgment

Article 757 of the Civil Act provides, “The contractor shall not be liable for the damages inflicted upon a third party regarding the work. However, this shall not apply where there is gross negligence on the contractor with respect to the contract or instruction.” Thus, the contractor shall not be liable for the damages inflicted on a third party regarding the work unless there is gross negligence on the contractor with respect to the contract or instruction.”

In this context, the term “serious negligence” refers to “a situation in which a certain degree of attention is not required for an ordinary person even without due care, it can easily anticipate the result of the harm caused by unlawful conduct, but it inevitably lacks significant attention that is close to the intention, such as the lack of a little degree of attention.”

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da12239 delivered on August 23, 2002, etc.). The following circumstances revealed by the above facts, i.e., the contractor, in principle, has no duty of care to take safety measures necessary to prevent accidents in relation to the contractor’s work, and ii) the instant construction works are repairing the roof of the warehouse of this case.