beta
Text
1. The Defendant jointly with C and D, as well as KRW 71,023,80,00 for the Plaintiff and its related thereto, from July 19, 2018 to October 11, 2019.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. 1) On July 8, 2017, the Plaintiff’s vinyl houses on the F Ground from E to E on July 8, 2017 (hereinafter “instant vinyl houses”).
(2) On June 2017, the Defendant: (a) leased 5,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,000,000; and (b) leased 5,000; and (c) operated an industrial machinery distribution business in the said plastic house; (b) leased the instant plastic house next to the instant plastic house under the name of ASEAN; and (c) requested the first removal business operator to remove the instant factory under the name of H (hereinafter “instant factory”); and (d) requested C to remove the relevant large cooling house in the instant factory.
3) On June 5, 2017, C instructed employees D to remove air conditioners, and around 9:19 on the same day, C moved the flames generated from the consolidated line to the oil tank while removing air conditioners, and put them to the instant factory, and the greenhouses that were moved to the instant plastic house that was connected thereto were relocated to the instant plastic house (hereinafter “instant fire”).
D) On January 30, 2018, the Seoul Northern District Court issued a summary order of KRW 5,000,000 on the charge of the fire in this case by removing air conditioners without taking measures to prevent flames caused by the joint lines.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-5 and the purport of the whole pleadings
B. Determination 1) Generally, since there is no relationship between the contractor and the contractor, the contractor is not liable to compensate for the illegal acts committed by the contractor or his employee. However, in the case of the so-called labor contract, such as where the contractor directs the contractor to perform a specific act or awarding a specific project, the contractor is liable to compensate for the damages even if he is the contractor (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da37676, Nov. 10, 2005). 2) According to the above findings, the fire in this case was caused by D’s negligence.