beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
[Claim]
Reasons
The reasoning of the court of first instance concerning this case is to delete the “employment” of No. 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the part on “the existence of liability for damages” of No. 3 to No. 16 is the same as the part on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the use of “the existence of liability for damages” of No. 3 to No. 13 to No. 16. 2. Thus, according to the above facts acknowledged, A’s liability for damages is recognized pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. According to the above facts, the floor of the engine room where A work was conducted by using an oxygen cutting machine, and it can be sufficiently anticipated that A, who uses the oxygen cutting machine, may fall into the floor of the engine room and thus, during the work process, has to remove inflammable mixtures prior to commencing the work so that fire can not be sprinked, or install a covering or fire prevention, which caused the accident of this case without due to negligence.
As such, under Article 756(1) of the Civil Act, the defendant is liable for damages caused by an act committed by A, who is an employee of the defendant, with respect to the execution of affairs.
In regard to this, the defendant asserts that, as the defendant was not a worker belonging to the defendant, but a worker belonging to D who was subcontracted the repair work of this case by the defendant, the defendant was not requested by the defendant to do the contact work on the part of the main unit of the air condition pumps at the lowest floor of the engine room at the time of life-long shipping (hereinafter "the contact work of this case"), A was requested by B, who is a personnel of life-long shipping, and without obtaining the defendant's permission or instruction, was not responsible for the accident of this case, and therefore, the accident of this case occurred during the course of the contact work of this case without obtaining the defendant's permission or instruction.
However, the Civil Code.