(a) Requirements for a contractor to be liable for employers for the conduct of the contractor;

(b) Whether the employer is responsible where the contractor supervises the contractor's work;

A. Where the contractor has reserved the right of specific direction and supervision on the progress and method of the work of the contractor, the relationship between the contractor and the contractor does not substantially differ from the relationship between the employer and the employee, and the contractor cannot be exempted from the employer's liability for damages caused by the illegal acts of the contractor or the third party employed by the subcontractor.

B. If the direction and supervision of a contractor, which serves as the basis for the definition of an employer and an employee, for a construction work, refers to the management of a contractor by directly ordering, supervising, and supervising the operation and execution of a specific construction work at the site in the case of a construction work, and the degree of the operation and execution of a construction work is to the extent that the construction work is implemented in accordance with the design drawing or specifications, it is nothing more than the supervision of the fairness, and it cannot be seen as this. Therefore, if the contractor is merely a supervising supervision of the contractor’s construction work, it cannot be deemed that the relationship between the two is not an employer and an employee.

Articles 756, 757, and 664 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 74Da1506 delivered on February 10, 1975, 74Da2256 delivered on July 30, 1975, 81Da544 delivered on January 26, 1982

Plaintiff 1 and four others, Counsel for the defendant-appellee-appellant

Attorney Kim Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 82Na4460 delivered on May 16, 1983

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The ground of appeal No. 1 by the defendant's attorney is examined.

1. The contractor is not liable to compensate for the damage inflicted upon a third party on the date unless there is gross negligence on the contract or instruction (Article 757 of the Civil Act). However, where the contractor has reserved the right of detailed direction and supervision on the progress and method of the work of the contractor, the relationship between the contractor and the contractor is substantially different from the relationship between the employer and the employee. Therefore, the contractor cannot be exempted from the employer liability under Article 756 of the Civil Act for the tort of a third party employed by the contractor, and this applies to the subcontract.

However, the direction and supervision of the contractor, which is the basis of the definition of the employer and the employee as above, refers to the management of the contractor by directly ordering, supervising, supervising, and encouraging the operation and execution of the specific work at the site in the case of the construction work, and the so-called supervision merely supervising the process by simply confirming whether the degree of the operation and execution of the construction work is being implemented in accordance with the design plan or specifications does not constitute this. Thus, if the contractor is merely conducting supervision over the construction work of the contractor, the relationship between the two shall not be seen as the relationship between the employer and the employee.

2. In this case, the judgment of the court below was awarded a contract for the wastewater treatment facilities construction of the company Ansan Factory with the non-party 1, and the non-party 1 awarded a subcontract for the part of the construction work of the above construction to the non-party 2, while the above non-party 1 gave a retaining wall construction, etc. during the above civil engineering work, and re-subcontracts to the non-party 2. The non-party 1 was employed by the non-party 2 as the non-party 2, and the non-party 1 fell under the wind that the non-party 1 got out of the spawd down and spad down and spad down the spad down, and caused the injury as stated in the judgment below. The defendant sent the non-party 3, who is an employee of the above wastewater treatment facilities construction, to the site agent of the above wastewater treatment facilities construction work, and ordered and supervised the construction work at the site to inspect whether the construction work is well in accordance with the specifications, and the defendant was responsible for manufacturing the non-party 2's negligence and supervision caused by negligence.

However, if the supervision performed by the defendant against the non-party 1 or the non-party 2, who is the subcontractor, was to the extent that the defendant's on-site agent adjusts the process of construction and inspects whether the contents of construction are well-grounded in the specifications as shown in the original adjudication, it shall not be deemed that the defendant directly directed and supervised the operation and implementation of specific construction work, as shown above. Thus, the judgment of the court below which recognized the employer's responsibility against the defendant is erroneous or incomplete or incomplete, which recognized the employer's responsibility without clearly stating the direction and supervision relationship in the contract or subcontract in this case.

The court below should have determined whether the defendant's supervision over the above subcontractor through the field agent was merely a simple supervision or whether there was a direction and supervision for the execution management.

3. Ultimately, the judgment of the court below has a significant violation of law, which constitutes the grounds for reversal under Article 12(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on other grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)