logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.11.02 2016노805
업무상과실치사등
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) entered into a subcontract with R Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) with respect to the part of the removal of air conditioners during the said construction work upon receiving an order for G construction, and R Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”). At the time of the instant case, the victim was the person in charge of the field management at the time of the instant accident, and Defendant C did not know of the content of the work the victim did not know of the work at the scene of the accident.

Therefore, Defendant D is a business owner’s business that is conducted under a contract for the removal of the air conditioners of the machinery room “wholly by contract,” and that is conducted in the same place as “Article 29(3) and 29(1)1 of the Industrial Safety and Health Act, and does not constitute a business owner’s business that is given a contract separately.

B) The above Defendants implemented necessary measures to prevent workers from falling risk under Article 23(3) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act. (2) The occupation of occupational death (Defendant C) D does not fall under a business owner under Article 29(3) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act, but does not fall under special circumstances, such as where a contractor is given specific management and supervision duties, or a contractor is given specific direction and supervision of the contractor’s work performance or individual work. Therefore, Defendant C did not constitute occupational death, and Defendant C took all necessary safety measures.

B. The respective sentence of the lower court (Defendant A and B: each fine of KRW 7 million, Defendant C and D: each fine of KRW 5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination of the misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by Defendant C and D

A. Defendant D (Defendant C, Co., Ltd.) 1 violated the Occupational Safety and Health Act is air conditioners in the machine room.

arrow