Whether a contractor who has no supervisory relationship with the contractor is responsible for the contractor

If a contractor is responsible for the acts of the contractor, he/she shall be in a relationship of direction and supervision between him/her.

Articles 756 and 757 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and two others

Large exhibition and one other

Daejeon District Court (68Ga1023) in the first instance

The part concerning the defendant Daejeon among the original judgment shall be revoked.

All appeals filed by the plaintiffs against the above defendant and by the defendant 2 limited partnership company and the plaintiff 1 and 2 are dismissed.

Of the litigation costs, the part that was born by the plaintiffs and the defendant Daejeon is borne by both the first and second instances, and the costs of appeal by the defendant 2 limited partnership company shall be borne by the same defendant, and the costs of appeal by the plaintiffs 1 and 2 shall be borne by the same defendant.

The defendant et al. shall jointly and severally pay 764,274 won to the plaintiff 1, 457,137 won to the plaintiff 2, 50,000 won to the plaintiff 3, and 50,000 won per annum from the following day of service to the date of full payment.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendants.

(1) The plaintiffs 1 and 2 shall revoke the part against the plaintiffs in the original judgment.

The Defendants jointly and severally pay 120,000 won to Plaintiff 1, 80,000 won to Plaintiff 2, and 50,000 won per annum from the following day of service to the date of full payment.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants in both the first and second instances, and a declaration of provisional execution.

(2) The Defendants shall revoke the part of the original judgment against the Defendants.

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

(1) Determination as to the claim against Defendant 2 limited partnership company

(A) On August 5, 1967, when Defendant 2 limited partnership company (hereinafter referred to as Defendant Company's abbreviation) was contracted with Defendant 3 to extend the above 3rd time in the war, the fact that Nonparty 1 died from the pool below the above 1,68,9 and Eul No. 3 without dispute between the parties. According to the testimony of Nonparty 2 and 3 of the court below and the purport of the oral argument, the Defendant Company did not have the capacity to recognize the above 4 meters in radius and 1,200 - 300 meters in depth in order to establish a pool of the above 3rd time in the war by entering the above contract, and if there seems to be no other dispute between the parties, and there seems to be an adequate opportunity for Nonparty 1 to recognize the above 3rd time and install a pool of the above 1,68,000 square meters in width and there seems to be an adequate opportunity for the Defendant Company to open the 3rd time and open the 3rd time and open the 5th century.

If so, the above accident occurred due to the defect that did not take security measures in installing or preserving the above teaching angle, which is a structure by the defendant company, so the defendant is responsible for compensating for the damages suffered by the plaintiff, etc.

(B) Property damage to the network.

According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 3-1 and 2 of the above deceased's monthly living expenses 】 (the deceased's healthy male with the age of 5,88 as of Aug. 10, 1961) and the average female life remaining for 54,88 years at the time of this accident. As of April 21, 1970 as of the closing date of oral argument, the average male's daily labor wages of 478 won as of April 21, 1970 are 478 won per day, and 300 days per year for rural labor, and 3,600 won as of the above deceased's monthly living expenses 】 205 won per annum, and eventually, the deceased's age of 204 and 500 won was 40 won per year, 200 won per year after deducting his age of 24,555 won until his age of x 304,300 won per year.

However, according to the above facts, it is recognized that the negligence of the care and custody obligor who left Nonparty 1, who had neglected Nonparty 1, who had a weak mental capacity to change an object, in the occurrence of this accident, was concurrent with the negligence of the care obligor who left the pool in order to make an unafrecing desire to take part in it, and in consideration of this, the amount of compensation to be paid by the Defendant is reasonable, and if it is divided according to the deceased’s share of inheritance, the amount of compensation to be paid by the Defendant is equal to KRW 600,00 and KRW 20,000 if it is divided according to the deceased’s co-inheritors’s share of inheritance.

(C) Consolation money

Since it is acknowledged in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiffs who are their parents or siblings due to the death of the non-party 1 received mental impulse, the defendant is obligated to do so. Considering the situation of the accident such as the above recognition and all other circumstances shown in the records of the case, it is reasonable to pay 70,000 won to the plaintiff 1 and 2 as consolation money and 30,000 won to the plaintiff 3 as consolation money.

(D) Therefore, the Defendant Company is obligated to pay the Plaintiff 1 the sum of KRW 470,00 as above, KRW 270,000 as above, KRW 30,00 as above, and KRW 30,00 as above, and KRW 30,00 as above, and the service profit so that it can be made, from July 13, 1968 to the full payment.

(2) Determination as to the claim against the defendant Daejeon

The plaintiff et al. asserted that the defendant company caused the death of the non-party 1 as the user of the defendant company, because the non-party 1 did not have a supervisor at a level of about 1 meters and 40 cent meters in depth in order to establish a school by receiving the above wooding construction from the defendant Daejeon War. Thus, it is argued that the defendant company is liable for damages caused to the plaintiffs as the user of the defendant company. Thus, in accordance with Article 756 of the Civil Code, it is argued that the defendant Daejeon sought the payment of damages (the non-party 1's passive damages and consolation money) such as the statement in the claim against the defendant Daejeon, so if it is responsible for the contractor's act as the owner of the work, it is related to direction and supervision between the defendant Daejeon and the defendant company. In this case, since the contract between the defendant Daejeon and the defendant company did not have a general relation with the contract, the plaintiff's claim for the use of the above part of the plaintiff company is groundless.

(3) Thus, the plaintiffs' claims for objection against the defendant company are justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims against the defendant and the claims against the defendant Daejeon are just and dismissed. Since the part concerning the defendant company among the original judgment concerning the defendant company is just and the part concerning the defendant Daejeon is unfair, the appeal against the defendant company, the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 2 is dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 89, 93, 95, and 96 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the cost of lawsuit.

Judges Jeong-won (Presiding Judge)