2014 Ghana 12524 Damage (as defined)

1. Kim 00

2. Stambling0

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Kim Young-young, Justice Kim Jong-young, Justice Park Jong-ho, and President

00 Industry Co., Ltd.

Representative Director Kim00

Attorney Lee Jae-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

August 18, 2015

September 15, 2015

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

From March 25, 2013 to the date of delivery of a copy of the application for amendment of the purport of the instant claim from March 25, 2013 to March 39, 132, 689, and Plaintiff Park 00, the Defendant paid to Plaintiff Kim 00 an amount by 5% per annum and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 25, 2013: around 00 on March 25, 2013, Nonparty 1: around 30, Nonparty 2: (a) opened a crime prevention window which was boomed by a steel company following the building (hereinafter referred to as the “instant rest area”) located in south-si, Nam-si, Seoul, in his hand, and opened a window after the year; and (b) was in possession of the Plaintiff Kim 00’s snow part on two occasions, the left part of the snow part of the Plaintiff Kim 1, one time, and the face and head part of the said Plaintiff on drinking, and caused Plaintiff 00 to suffer injury to the Plaintiff’s real name, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the “accident of this case”).

B. On October 7, 2010, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the Korea Highway Corporation (hereinafter “Non-Party Corporation”) under which the Defendant would rent and use the facilities of the instant rest area and the right to use the site thereof from the Non-Party Corporation, and operated the instant rest area from around that time.

C. After the Defendant leased the instant rest area from Nonparty Corporation, on June 7, 2013, “00 circulation” between Nonparty Kim 00 and Nonparty 1, who engaged in the on-site manufacturing and supply business in the name of “,” the Defendant concluded an agreement that Kim 00 manufactures and supplies goods necessary for the operation of the instant rest area to the Defendant, and that supplies necessary manpower to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant supply agreement”). Kim 00 supplied the Defendant with the goods necessary for the operation of the instant rest area in accordance with the instant supply contract, as well as the necessary manpower such as Plaintiff Kim 00.

D. Plaintiff Kim 00 is a worker employed in Kim 00, who is placed at the rest area of this case, and who is a worker.

High Park 00 is Plaintiff Kim00 (children), and the dormitory of this case is accommodation facilities provided by the Defendant for those who work in the instant rest area.

2. Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment thereon

A. As to the existence of liability based on actual labor relations

First of all, the plaintiffs asserted that the plaintiff Kim 00 was formally ordered and supervised by the defendant, and that the continued employment of the plaintiff Kim 00 was decided by the defendant, and the accident of this case was eventually caused by the defendant's failure to properly perform his duty of protection or safety consideration for the workers under his control. Accordingly, the plaintiffs suffered the same loss as that stated in the attached Form No. 1, and thus, the defendant should compensate the plaintiffs for the above loss.

In addition to the statement of No. 1 of this case, if the whole purport of argument is added to the statement of No. 1 of this case, it is reasonable to view that Article 4 of the supply contract of this case is subject to the direction and control of the defendant, and it is replaced upon the defendant's request. However, the above employee is required to be managed under the responsibility of Kim 00, while the above employee is not only under the responsibility of Kim 00, but also the defendant's instruction, management, supervision, etc. is limited to all within the scope necessary for the operation of the rest area of this case, and it is based on the supply contract of this case concluded with Kim 00, which is also based on the supply contract of this case between the defendant Kim 100, and it is merely a part of the defendant's order as part of the labor contract of this case which is concluded with the defendant Kim 100.

B. As to the existence of liability as the possessor of a structure

Next, since the accident of this case occurred due to the lack of safety devices, such as crime prevention devices normally required in the dormitory of this case, the defendant is the possessor of the dormitory of this case.

The above claimant asserts that all of the damages described in paragraph (a) must be compensated for.

In light of the above facts, the rest area of this case is set up in the south city, and operated only up to 20:00, and there is no dispute between the parties, but if the defendant's replacement of the correction device into the key, the whole purport of the pleading is added to the above facts. On the other hand, at the time of the accident, the rest area lawsuit of this case was set up, and was corrected by the iron company. However, it is hard to view that Kim 00, which was set up within the dormitory of this case and was used as a lodging house of this case, and it was difficult to view that there was no legal reason to view that there was no other criminal act of this case, such as murder, and that there was no other criminal act of this case, for which the defendant did not have any duty to visit the boarding house of this case, and that there was no other criminal act of this case and no other criminal act of this case for which the defendant did not have any duty to use the dormitory of this case.

C. As to the employer’s liability for maximum 00

Finally, although the plaintiffs have a duty to notify or prevent the risk of occurrence of the fact-finding relation with Kim 00 to the maximum 00 workers belonging to the defendant, they were negligent in doing so, and thus, the accident of this case occurred. Thus, the defendant asserts that the defendant is an employer against maximum 00, who is an employee, and has a duty to compensate the plaintiffs for the damages incurred by the plaintiff's failure of maximum 00. A.

On the other hand, a person who had an employee engage in certain affairs using another person shall be liable for damages inflicted upon a third party regarding the performance of his affairs (see Article 756 of the Civil Act). However, as seen earlier, the accident of this case is arising from the lap relationship between Kim 00 and the maximum 00, and it is not related to the execution of the affairs intentionally. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit without examining further matters.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed in entirety as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Noh Tae-kon

Attached List of Damage Details

A person shall be appointed.