In the case of a so-called labor contract, the case holding that the contractor is liable for the employer under Article 756 of the Civil Act due to the contractor's illegal acts.

Where the contractor has been awarded a contract for the repair of the building owned by the contractor, but the contractor is not bound by the pre-determineded design in the course of the repair work, and the contractor has supplied the necessary materials after consultation with the contractor during the construction work, and the contractor has ordered the construction work, even if the above construction contract is in the form of the contract, in the case of the so-called labor contract, the contractor is liable to compensate for the damage suffered by the third party due to the contractor's negligence as the contractor.

Articles 756 and 757 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 65Da1688 delivered on October 19, 1965 (Supreme Court Decision 1502Da1502 delivered on October 19, 1965, Supreme Court Decision 13 ②B citizen209 delivered on October 19, 196, and Article 756(41)55

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Defendant 1 and one other

Daejeon District Court (73Gahap263) in the first instance

The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendants.

The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 1 an amount of KRW 2,113,300, KRW 1,156,650, and KRW 1,156,650, and the amount at the rate of 5% per annum from the next day of service to the day of complete payment.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants, and provisional execution declaration

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

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against all of the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

The grounds for the judgment to be a member of the instant case are as follows, and this is identical to the grounds for the judgment in addition to the parts in which the original judgment is reversed or supplemented, thereby citing it.

(1) From the 6th line above the ground of appeal 1, the part regarding “in employment by Defendant 1 as a daily allowance,” which reads as “the so-called labor contract with Defendant 1’s construction cost of KRW 130,000”.

(2) Although the court below rejected the entries in Eul evidence Nos. 2 (written opinion) and Eul evidence Nos. 3 (written opinion of Interrogation of Suspect) which had no dispute over the establishment, and the part of the testimony of non-party 1's testimony and non-party 2 and 3's testimony of non-party 1's witness of the court below, which are consistent with the facts admitted by the above (1) added as quoted evidence, and are contrary to the above facts admitted, Gap evidence No. 10 (written notice), Gap evidence No. 5 (written protocol of suspect Examination), and evidence No. 4 (written protocol of suspect Examination) which are contrary to the above facts admitted, and the part of testimony of non-party 4 of the party court witness of the

(3) As to the part of the original judgment that judged Defendant 1 liable for damages as an employer, the following determination is standard.

In general, since there is no relationship between the contractor and the contractor, the contractor does not apply the provisions of Article 756 of the Civil Act, but in the case of a so-called labor contract, such as ordering a specific act or awarding a contract for a specific project, the contractor shall be liable for damages under Article 756 of the Civil Act even if the contractor is the contractor. In this case, in full view of each of the above evidence and the whole purport of oral argument at the time of the original judgment, the non-party 4, who was awarded the contract from the same defendant 1, determined the outline of the construction, and performed the construction, and specifically consulted with the non-party 1, the owner of the building, who was the owner of the building, on the basis that the materials necessary for the construction, etc. were to purchase the materials at the construction site to the non-party 4 at that time, and caused damages to the non-party 1, who was ordered to do so through the non-party 4, which was the owner of the construction work, even if the plaintiffs had been ordered to do so at that time.

On the other hand, the original judgment that forms the same conclusion is just, and the appeal by the Defendants is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)