Labor contract for which the employer is liable for; and

The so-called labor contract relationship in which the contractor is liable for damages as an employer for the illegal acts of the contractor shall be limited to the case where the contract is based on the direction of a specific act or the contract for a specific project, not through the whole contract for all labor or labor.

Article 757 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and four others

Defendant

Seoul District Court Incheon Branch of the first instance court (75 Gohap460)

The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiffs' claims concerning the above cancellation are dismissed.

The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of 4,882,800 won, 200,000 won to the plaintiff 2, 3,4,000 won, and 100,000 won per annum from August 20, 1975 to the full payment system.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

(Plaintiffs)

The part against the plaintiffs in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay 3,032,800 won to the plaintiff 1, 170,000 won to the plaintiff 2, and 70,000 won to the plaintiff 3,4, and 5 respectively, and 5% of the annual amount from August 20, 1975 to the full payment system.

The costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the defendant in both the first and second trials and a declaration of provisional execution.

(Defendant) It is so decided as per Disposition No. 1, No. 2, No. 4

Plaintiff 1, around 10:30 on August 19, 1975, there is no dispute between the parties as to the facts that there was an accident involving injury, such as pressure of the second half-yearly pressure, etc., due to the fall into the wind, which was set up on the outer wall of the second floor of the building at the construction site of the building at the 451-9 location of the North-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Incheon Metropolitan City, and in the construction site of the building at the same time.

The plaintiffs employed Nonparty 1 and had the Dong-in engaged in the supervisory affairs of the construction of the building, and they did not install it firmly while making it necessary to do so for the construction of the building without outer walls, and caused the accident of this case by the plaintiff 1's failure to remove the above sapper from the outer wall. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident in this case as the user of the non-party 1. Even if the defendant and the non-party 1 did not recognize the above employment relationship and ordered the non-party 1 to contract the construction of the building, even if the defendant supplied the building materials to the construction site and supervised the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and his father, the contract between the defendant and the non-party 1 is merely labor contract. Thus, the defendant is in the status of the non-party 1's employer, and therefore the defendant cannot be exempted from the liability for damages caused by the above tort. Finally, the defendant is liable to compensate for damages caused by the accident in this case.

Although Nonparty 4’s construction work was carried out by Nonparty 4’s construction work without dispute, Nonparty 1 and 15’s construction permit (construction design), Eul’s construction work is presumed to have been carried out, and evidence Nos. 3-1 and 9 of the total construction work presumed to have been carried out due to the lack of dispute over the establishment of the non-party 4’s construction work, the Defendant would not have any construction work for the non-party 4’s construction work to the extent that the non-party 1 and the non-party 4’s construction work would have been carried out by the non-party 3’s construction work to the extent that the non-party 4’s construction work would not have been carried out by the non-party 4’s construction work, and the Defendant would not have any construction work for the non-party 3 and the non-party 4’s construction work to the extent that the non-party 4’s construction work was carried out by the non-party 4’s construction permit to the extent that the construction work was carried out by the non-party 4’s construction work.

In light of the above facts, it is clear that the accident was concurrently caused by the negligence of Nonparty 1, the employees of Nonparty 1, the employees of Nonparty 2, who supervised the non-party 1, and the non-party 3, the subcontractor of the non-party 1, who neglected the duty of care in safety management. The defendant employed Nonparty 1 as the on-site supervisor and did not directly execute the construction of the above building by employing the non-party 1 as the site supervisor, and the Dong had ordered the non-party 3 to subcontract the whole construction work, and the Dong had ordered the non-party 3 to subcontract the non-party 1, the non-party 2, and the defendant did not have any responsibility to direct or supervise the non-party 1, the non-party 3 or his employees.

Therefore, among the plaintiffs' arguments, the defendant's assertion that the non-party 1 was employed by the non-party 1 as a construction supervision at the site is groundless. The plaintiff's assertion that the contract was merely a labor contract, even if the defendant ordered the non-party 1 to contract the construction work, and therefore, the contract is liable for damages due to the accident. In light of the fact that the so-called labor contract relationship between the defendant and the non-party 1 does not constitute a case where the contract relations between the defendant and the non-party 1 constitutes a supervisory relation as above, it is clear that the contract relations between the defendant and the non-party 1 is not reasonable in light of the fact that the contract relations between the defendant and the non-party 1 is established, and the so-called labor contract relations, which is held liable for damages, are all stipulated in Article 756 of the Civil Code which provides for the compensation liability of the employer, and Article 757 of the Civil Code which provides for the responsibility of the contractor.

In addition, the plaintiffs' assertion that there was negligence by the defendant that the non-party 1, 2, and 3, who is not qualified to supervise the construction work under the Building Act and the Certified Architects Act, caused the construction work to be performed by the defendant. Even if the non-party 1, 2, and 3 who ordered the construction work by receiving a contract for the construction work of the above building and supervised the construction work, the non-party 1, 2, and 3, who is not qualified to supervise the construction work of the above legal special buildings, is not subject to restrictions on qualifications for supervision in addition to the construction work supervision under the above law, and the construction supervision does not mean the direction supervision of the construction (Article 2 (3) of the Certified Architects Act defines the act of confirming whether the construction work is performed by the design as the construction supervision act). Thus, the plaintiffs

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' arguments seeking to recognize liability for damages arising from the accident in this case are not justifiable. Thus, the plaintiffs' claims in this case should be dismissed as it is without merit because it is not necessary to examine further. Since the original judgment partially cites the plaintiffs' claims, the part against the defendant in the original judgment is revoked, and the plaintiffs' claims against this is dismissed, and the plaintiffs' appeals are without merit, and the costs of the lawsuit in the first and second instance are assessed against the losing party.

Judges Osungsung(Presiding Judge)