The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In the case of a contract for construction works, the contractor has not been obliged to take safety measures necessary for the prevention of accidents in connection with the contractor’s work; however, the contractor is also obligated to take safety measures necessary for the prevention of accidents in special circumstances, such as the contractor’s duty to manage and supervise the contractor’s work, or the contractor has specifically instructed and supervised the contractor’s work or individual work.

(2) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and evidence duly examined by the lower court, etc., (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do7030, May 28, 2009; 2010Do1448, Dec. 23, 2010). (2) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the lower court, the Defendant: (a) requested F, a pipeline repairer to transfer livestock excreta to storage in the instant breeding site on or around September 2013; (b) installed a new pipeline to transfer livestock excreta to storage in the instant breeding site; (c) by the negligence of the workers in the course of use, installed an intermediate valve to prevent the original amount low-water low-water tank; (d) the Defendant opened an intermediate valve installed in the pipeline but failed to transfer livestock excreta; and (c) the Defendant asked F to repair the livestock excreta to the Defendant before work; and (c) even before the instant breeding site, the Defendant knew that livestock excreta discharged in the neighboring public waters or was punished by excre.

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Defendant, who is the operator of the instant breeding farm, may be deemed to have performed specific direction and supervision concerning the pipeline repair work. Therefore, in preparation for the discharge of livestock excreta, the Defendant, who is the operator of the instant breeding farm, can be seen as