beta
Text
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
Reasons
1. A summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and legal principles) Article 29(1)1 and (3) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act provides that “The owner of a business carried out in the same place and is obliged to contract part of the business separately shall take measures to prevent industrial accidents that may arise in the course of performing work at the same place by his/her employees and those employed by his/her contractor; and where his/her employees work at a place where there is a risk of industrial accidents as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor, he/she shall take measures to prevent industrial accidents as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor.
“......”
However, Defendant C was awarded a contract for the removal and waste disposal of the redevelopment project by the I Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association located in Changwon-si, Changwon-si, and sold to O (H) the non-performance and scrap metal coming from the process of removal of redevelopment and improvement project, and did not contract the removal work to O.
Therefore, Defendant C cannot be deemed to have subcontracted the removal work even to A who purchased non-ferrouss and scrap metal fromO. As such, Defendant C is not a business owner who is obligated to take industrial accident prevention measures under Article 29(1) and (3) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act with respect to the business conducted by A, but Defendant C, an employee of Defendant C, also is not obligated to take industrial accident prevention measures.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and in the misapprehension of legal principles, since Defendant C, a corporation, and C, committed a violation of the Industrial Safety and Health Act by misunderstanding that the removal of the I Housing Redevelopment Development and Improvement Project was ordered to the Defendants.
2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, Defendant C Co., Ltd. and I.