Whether a contractor is liable for damages caused by a tort of a third party employed by the contractor under Article 756 of the Civil Act, where the contractor has reserved the right to supervise specific direction on the progress and method of the contractor’s work (affirmative)

Unless there is gross negligence on the contract or instruction, the contractor shall be liable for the damages inflicted upon a third party regarding the work, but where the contractor has reserved the right of specific direction and supervision on the work progress and method of the contractor, the relationship between the contractor and the contractor shall not substantially differ from the relationship between the employer and the employee, and the contractor may not be exempted from the employer liability under Article 756 of the Civil Act for the damages caused by the illegal acts of the third party employed by the contractor, and this applies to the case of the subcontract.

Article 756 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1153 decided Nov. 22, 1983 (Gong1984, 101) (Gong1991, 1160) and 92Da2615 decided Jun. 23, 1992 (Gong192, 2249)

Plaintiff 1 and 3 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee-appellant

Guro-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee and two others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na8172 delivered on September 22, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

1. As to the ground of appeal by Defendant Guro-gu Attorney

Based on adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged that Non-party 1, who is a public official of the above defendant, is responsible for managing the street, etc. of the part of the accident site of this case, was removed from the responsibility of the above Si, and found out that the underground cable passing through the accident site of this case was exposed to the road before the accident site of this case before the accident of this case, and neglected it. The court below rejected the defendant Guro-gu's claim that the defendant Guro-gu is responsible for the preservation and management of the street light of the accident site of this case and the defect in the management and the negligence in the performance of the above non-party 1, who is his employee. The court below determined that the defendant Guro-gu is responsible for the damage, such as the street etc. that interfered with the construction of the road of the accident site of this case, on the ground of an agreement with the non-party 1, who was responsible for the maintenance and management of the road of this case, and the defendant Guro-gu shall not be exempted from the responsibility of the above defendant.

The fact-finding and decision of the court below are just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts in violation of the rules of evidence.

In addition, the lower court cannot be deemed to have excessively limited the degree of contribution of the deceased Nonparty 2 to the negligence in determining the scope of compensation for damages caused by the instant accident. There is no reason for the argument.

2. As to the ground of appeal by the defendant Nam Nam-gu Construction Company

(1) Based on adopted evidence, the court below found that the above defendant company, as part of the installation work of high-priced teaching lines near the accident site of this case as part of the installation work of the building of the south west-ro road, and caused the destruction of the road near the accident site of this case over several occasions, and caused the arche pipes of the cable for street lights laid underground from March 190 to the ground, and caused the destruction of the road of this case to the passage of vehicles, etc., and the above defendant company, as part of the water supply pipe relocation construction work of the west-ro Corporation's affiliated with the west-ro Corporation, ordered the non-party company to subcontract to the non-party 3 and the non-party 4, who is the site of the non-party company, caused the non-party company to excavate one point of the drawings attached to the judgment below on August 24, 199, and caused the non-party 2 to repeat the above part of the road to be cut off by exposing the road of this case without reporting only to the work site of the defendant company.

Such fact-finding by the court below is justified and it cannot be said that there is an error of violation of the rules of evidence.

(2) Unless there is any gross negligence on the contract or instruction, a contractor is not liable for damages inflicted upon a third party regarding the work (Article 757 of the Civil Act). Where a contractor has reserved the right of specific direction for the work progress and method of the contractor, the relationship between the contractor and the contractor does not substantially differ from the relationship between the employer and the employee. Therefore, the contractor cannot be held liable for damages caused by the illegal act of a third party employed by the contractor under Article 756 of the Civil Act, and the same applies to the subcontract (see Supreme Court Decision 83Meu153, Nov. 22, 1983; Supreme Court Decision 90Da18432, Mar. 8, 191; Supreme Court Decision 92Da2615, Jun. 23, 1992).

According to the court below's determination, as to the above subcontract between the defendant company and the non-party 1 corporation, since the site director of the construction site for the construction of the non-party company established with the link road of the defendant company specifically ordered the non-party company to supervise the non-party company's construction work, the court below's decision that recognized the defendant company's liability for damages incurred by the non-party 3 and the non-party 4, etc.'s electric exploitation of electric wires is just and there is no error of law of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to user liability

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)