1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the judgment in this part of the premise facts is the same as that of Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, thereby citing it pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of

2. Determination

A. Legal principles (i) Generally, since a contractor does not have a relationship between the contractor and the contractor, the contractor is not liable as an employer for tort committed by the contractor or his employee. However, ① A contractor’s relationship between the contractor and the contractor does not actually have a relationship between the contractor and the contractor and the contractor, and thus, the contractor or the contractor is liable for damages arising out of the tort as prescribed in Article 75 of the Civil Act, in cases where the contractor directs a specific act to the contractor or sub-subcontracts only the part of the execution while supplying himself/herself (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da53086, Apr. 25, 1997; 2004Da37676, Nov. 10, 2005).

D. Meanwhile, in the case of construction works, the direction and supervision of the contractor, which is the basis for recognizing exceptional relationships between employers and employees, refers to the management of the contractor, by directly directing, supervising, and monitoring the operation and execution of specific construction works at the site. The so-called supervision merely supervising the process by simply confirming whether the degree of the operation and execution of construction works is being implemented in accordance with the design plan or specifications, does not constitute this. Thus, unless the contractee merely supervises the contractor’s construction works, the relationship between the two cannot be seen as the relationship between the employer and the employee.

Supreme Court on November 23, 1983