Whether a subcontractor is exempted from liability due to an error in design of the subcontractor where the subcontractor has agreed to assume the responsibility for the occurrence of an accident in the subcontract construction contract.

If a subcontractor under a subcontract construction contract agrees to take necessary safety measures and take the responsibility for an accident, it is merely the purport that the subcontractor is not responsible for the inside of the subcontractor and the subcontractor in the case of an accident caused by negligence in the safety management of the subcontractor. However, it cannot be deemed that the subcontractor is responsible for the accident caused by a mistake in design, and that only the subcontractor is responsible for the accident caused by negligence.

Articles 105, 750, and 757 of the Civil Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others, Counsel for defendant-appellee

Attorney Park Jong-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 93Na49668 delivered on May 3, 1994

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the accident of this case occurred on the ground that the plaintiff 1, who was subcontracted with the steel structure of this case under the labor contract with the defendant, used to attach approximately 200 km beam beams to reinforced concrete walls, by weight, and the above plaintiff 1 did not have the weight of the above steel structure, and the sloping beam beams attached to concrete walls were cut off on the ground, and the above plaintiff was working on the above sloping beams. The defendant company did not have any responsibility for the above construction work to the defendant for damages caused to the defendant's design of the steel structure because the concrete strength of the above building was weak in design of the steel structure, and the defendant company did not have any responsibility for the above construction work to the defendant for damages caused to the above defendant's construction work by negligence, and the defendant company did not have any responsibility for the above construction work with the above construction work's depth to the extent that the above construction work's depth did not require the plaintiff's construction work's construction work's above 50-60 meters in depth to the above construction work's depth.

2. On the second ground for appeal

The court below, as the plaintiff 1, who is a steel structure technician, knew that it is difficult to support the steel structure with the weight of the steel structure only due to strings, notified the defendant company to install the steel structure, and ordered the defendant company to install the steel structure in addition to the strings. Thus, the court below, despite the fact that the plaintiff 1, as the steel structure technician, did not take such measures as above, was negligent in temporarily or automatically strengthening the steel structure, and determined the plaintiff's negligence ratio as to the occurrence of the accident of this case as 30%, on the ground that the court below did not take such measures as above, and it is just in light of the records, and it cannot be said that there were errors in the determination of the ratio of comparative negligence as well as the theory of comparative negligence. It is not reasonable to hold that the court below erred in determining the ratio of comparative negligence.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)