The case holding that the decision between the contractor and the contractor, which is liable for the damages suffered by the contractor's employees due to negligence on the part of the contractor, is an unfair legal act.

Although an employee of a contractor due to the negligence of an employee of the contractor is liable to the contractor for damages, the contractor is liable to compensate for damages caused by the above injury, instead of taking the procedure for applying for accident compensation as the owner of the industrial accident compensation insurance who purchased the injured, and the contractor is liable to compensate for damages caused by the above injury, and the decision that the contractor is liable to deduct the contractor from the contract price that the contractor should naturally bear as the employer of the subcontractor, and the decision that the contractor is liable to the contractor for the damages that the contractor should pay from the contract price that the contractor should bear as a matter of course.

Article 104 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant corporation

Busan District Court (85dan5666)

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 3,408,90 won with 25 percent interest per annum from October 25, 1985 to the full payment day.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The above paragraph (2) can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

around April 1983, the fact that the Plaintiff received a subcontract from the Defendant for the repair work for the 102 Geum Sea Ships in the amount of KRW 4,140,000 and delivered it to the Defendant and received KRW 731,100 out of the above construction work, but did not receive KRW 3,408,90 in the remainder of the construction work, there is no dispute between the parties.

With respect to the Plaintiff’s claim for payment of KRW 3,408,90, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff would offset the amount on equal terms with the above construction payment claim, as shown below, since the Defendant had an opposing claim of KRW 9,372,293 against the Plaintiff. Thus, in light of the health class, Eul’s statement No. 1,2,35 1,26,8,901,101, and Nonparty 1’s testimony without dispute over establishment, and the purport of the oral argument in light of the whole purport of the oral argument, the Plaintiff, who was employed by the Plaintiff from the Defendant on April 2, 1983 as well as the repair work for the No. 30,00 vessel, had the Plaintiff employed and work for the Plaintiff on 30,000,000,000 won, and the Defendant received compensation for damages from Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 4 and Nonparty 5’s remaining 9,000,000 won of the above construction work and received compensation for industrial damages from Nonparty 2, etc.

Therefore, the plaintiff asserts that the above agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant on May 13, 1983 was remarkably unfair in the situation of the plaintiff's old situation. As such, considering the whole purport of the oral arguments as to the testimony of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5-1, 10-2, and 10-1, 10-5 of the above evidence Nos. 1,2, and 10, the court below's opinion that the plaintiff is not responsible for all other damages caused by the above disaster, and if the defendant is liable for damages due to the above accident, the above agreement that the plaintiff would be entitled to be deducted from the construction payment to the plaintiff was made because the above accident was caused by mistake of the non-party 3, 5, etc., who is the defendant's employee, the defendant's industrial accident compensation insurance contract was made to the non-party 2, and the non-party 2 would be entitled to compensation for damages due to the above insurance accident, and the defendant would be entitled to compensation for damages due to the non-party 2's late appeal.

However, not only in the above agreement of the issue but also in the above labor subcontract with the plaintiff, the defendant argued that the plaintiff or his employee's intentional negligence in relation to the safety accident occurred while the plaintiff performed the subcontracted work, and that the defendant paid compensation in accordance with the above judgment against the defendant, which caused the plaintiff to acquire the claim for reimbursement of compensation equivalent to the above amount and paid it to the plaintiff. However, even in accordance with the statement in the evidence No. 2, even if it is based on the statement in the above evidence No. 2, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff agreed to be responsible for the accident that occurred due to the negligence of the defendant and his employee, and there is no other evidence to deem otherwise.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 25% per annum from October 25, 1985 to the date of full payment under the record that the plaintiff is the 3,408,900 won of the above construction work and the next day after the complaint of this case was delivered to the defendant. Thus, the judgment of the court below is just and there is a ground for the defendant's appeal that causes an error in the conclusion. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is revoked and the judgment of the court below is accepted, and the total expenses for the lawsuit is subject to Articles 96 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act, and Article 6 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

Judges Cho Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)