beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the court added the judgment identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in paragraph (2) to the allegations added by the plaintiffs in this court. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance
2. Additional determination
A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion is ① Defendant breached the duty to take safety measures by a business owner under Article 23(3) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and, in violation of Article 41 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, caused the instant accident to the deceased H, who is not a constructor, and thus, the liability for damages is recognized. ② The owner of the stable for which the instant work was conducted (hereinafter "the stable of this case") is liable for damages due to defects in the installation or preservation of structures pursuant to Article 758(1) of the Civil Act.
B. As to the assertion of violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, Article 23(3) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act provides that "a business owner shall take necessary measures to prevent the risk of collapse in places where workers might fall down at work, where soil and sand, structures, etc. might collapse, where material objects might fall or come at risk, or where other risk may occur due to natural disasters during work," and Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act provides that "a business owner means a person who operates a business by using a worker" and Article 2 subparag. 2 of the same Act provides that "worker means a worker as defined in Article 2(1)1 of the Labor Standards Act."
Considering the background leading the instant work, etc., the network H appears to be not the employee employed by the Defendant, but the contractor to whom the instant work was requested. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs alone is that the Defendant is the Industrial Safety and Health Act against the network H.