All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

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 where the contractor has a specific duty to supervise the contractor's work, or the contractor has specifically supervised the contractor's work or individual work (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Do2263, Jan. 26, 1996; 2008Do7030, May 28, 2009). Article 29 (3) of the former Industrial Safety Act (amended by Act No. 1182, Jun. 12, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that a contractor shall take preventive measures against industrial accidents when a person who uses the contractor sets out work at a place at the risk of industrial accidents determined by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation.

Article 29(1) of the former Industrial Safety and Health Act provides that “A business owner under paragraph (1)” refers to a business owner of a business prescribed by Presidential Decree among the businesses that are conducted in the same place under a contract separately (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 contracted a part of the business shall take all measures to prevent industrial accidents that may arise in the workplace under his/her control after receiving a contract for the entire process of the project, such as the entire process of the project conducted by a contractor under a subcontract, and who has a capability or duty to control and coordinate the overall process of the project, and shall take measures to prevent industrial accidents that may arise in the workplace under his/her control.