The case holding that the Korea Electric Power Corporation shall be liable for damages to the Korea Electric Power Corporation in case where a safety accident occurred during the course of a contract for the former works.

In the event that the Joseon Electric Co., Ltd. carries out the construction work by contract for the said construction work from the Korea Electric Power Corporation, if the Korea Electric Power Co., Ltd. carries out the supervision of the said construction work, and inspected or tested materials or structures to be used in the construction work, and supervised the matters concerning the execution management of the shipbuilding and the management of the operation related to the construction work, it is deemed that the Korea Electric Power Co., Ltd

Article 756 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 71Da2370 delivered on January 31, 1972 (Article 756(31) of the Civil Code), 72Da1197 delivered on October 31, 1972 (Article 756(34)1237 of the Civil Code), 81Da428 delivered on February 8, 1983 (Article 756(65) of the Civil Code), 701No489 delivered on November 22, 1983 (Article 756(65) of the Civil Code, Article 756Da1153 delivered on November 22, 1983 (Article 756(66) of the Civil Code, Article 756(1242 of the Civil Code, Article 756(6) of the Civil Code)

Plaintiff 1 and six others

Korea Electric Power Corporation and one other

Gwangju District Court of the first instance (85 Gohap773)

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the plaintiffs' failure portion against the defendant Korea Electric Power Corporation corresponding to the following monetary amounts shall be revoked.

The defendant Korea Electric Power Corporation shall pay to plaintiffs 1 14,432,586 won and 500,000 won to plaintiffs 3, 4, and 500 won, respectively, 300,000 won to plaintiffs 6, and 7 respectively, and 20,000 won and 5% per annum from May 21, 1985 to December 11, 1987, and 25% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining appeals against Defendant Korea Electric Power Operator and all appeals against Defendant Chosun Electric Industries Co., Ltd. are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit between the plaintiffs and the defendant Korea Electric Power Corporation shall be borne by the defendants through the first and second instances, and the remaining costs shall be borne by the plaintiffs, respectively, and the costs of a simplified appeal between the plaintiffs and the defendant Samsung Electric Industry Corporation shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

4. The portion paid with the amount under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

The defendants jointly and severally pay to plaintiffs 1 34,280,000 won, 2,000,000 won to plaintiffs 3, 4, and 5 respectively, and 500,000 won to plaintiffs 6, and 7 respectively, and 50,000 won to each of them until the delivery date of the complaint of this case from May 21, 1985 to the delivery date of this case, 5% per annum and 25% per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants, and a declaration of provisional execution

Each part of the first instance judgment against the plaintiffs shall be revoked.

The defendant Korea Electric Power Corporation shall pay 34,280,00 won to plaintiffs 1, 200, 200,000 won to plaintiffs 3, 4, and 5 respectively, and 500,000 won to plaintiffs 6, and 7 respectively, and 50,000 won to plaintiffs 6, and 7, respectively, until the delivery date of the complaint in this case; 25 percent per annum from the following day to the full payment date; 18,049, 334 won to plaintiffs 1 among the above amounts; 1,50,000,000 won to plaintiffs 3, 4, and 50,000 won to plaintiffs 6, and 50,000 won to each of the above amounts; and 25 percent per annum from the following day to the date of the full payment date to the date of the complaint in this case; and 18,50,000 won to the plaintiff 1 among the above amounts to the defendant Electric Power Corporation and 2.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants in both the first and second instances, and a provisional execution on the payment part of the above money shall be declared.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

각 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제1호증의 1, 2(각 호적등본), 갑 제3호증(진단서), 갑 제6호증의 1, 2, 3(도급계약서 및 계약일반 조건, 공사도급계약서, 계약일반조건), 갑 제7호증(작업지시서), 갑 제8, 9호증(각 공사지시서), 갑 제10호증(휴전공사시공관계자 회의록 및 작업시행계획서), 갑 제1호증(정전품의), 갑 제12호증의 4(의견서), 같은 호증의 5, 6, 7, 8, 11(각 진술조서), 같은 호증의 9(실황조사서), 같은 호증의 10, 12,(각 피의자신문조서), 갑 제13호증의 1, 2(각 도면), 을 제1호증(공사시행품의 기안용지), 을 제2호증(착공계)의 각 기재와 제1심증인 신현수, 같은 장재동, 소외 2, 소외 1, 소외 3, 당심증인 윤재신, 같은 전찬영의 각 일부증언에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 피고 한국전력공사(업무관할 지점은 순천지점임)와 피고 조선전기공업주식회사(이하 피고 한전과 피고 조선전기라 약칭한다)는 1985.5.1. 피고 한전이 피고 조선전기에 전남 보성군 득량면 정흥리 도촌지구 경지정리 지장전주이설공사(이하 이 사건 공사라 한다)를 도급줌에 있어 공사기간은 1985.5.7.부터 동년 5.19.까지 13일간으로 하고, 피고 한전의 현장감독직원은 위 도급공사의 수행을 지휘 감독하며, 공사에 사용될 자재 또는 공작물을 검사 또는 시험하고, 피고 조선전기는 현장대리인을 지명하여 피고 한전에 통지하고 피고 조선전기의 현장대리인은 피고 한전의 위 현장감독 직원의 지시 감독에 따라 공사현장의 공사에 관한 사항을 처리하기로 하는 내용의 공사도급계약을 체결한 사실, 피고 한전은 피고 한전의 순천지점 보수와 직원인 소외 1을 이공사의 현장감독으로 임명하여 피고 조선전기의 위 공사를 지휘 감독하게 한사실, 그런데 위 공사가 우천관계로 1985.5.13 중지되자 피고 한전의 현장감독인 소외 1과 피고 조선전기의 현장대리인 소외 2는 같은 달 16.까지 공사를 중지시키기로하고 같은달 17. 재착공하여 같은달 24일 준공하기로 하되 같은 달 18. 09:00부터 13:00까지와 같은달 20 09:00경부터 18:00가지 휴전하고 공사를 하기로 한 사실, 피고 한전은 1985.5.16 위 순천지점 조성출장소 전기원인 소외 3을 현장보조감독으로 임명하여 휴전이 단행되는 1985.5.18부터 같은달 20.까지 피고 조선전기의 시공관리 및 공사관련 휴전조작관리에 관한 사항을 지시 감독하게 한 사실, 그런데 피고 조선전기의 전공의로 종사하던 원고 1이 1985.5.20. 17:30경 위 피고가피고 한전으로부터 도급받아 시공중인 우 전주이설공사현장인 전남 보성군 득량면 정흥리 2구 부락앞에서 그곳에 세원진 직경 36센티미터, 높이 약14미터, 무게 약1,500킬로그램의 전주이설을 위한 준비작업으로 소외 신상철과 함께 위 전주에 올라가 변압기를 철거하고 전선을절단하는 순간 위전주가 땅으로 넘어지는 바람에 위 전주에 왼쪽발목이 깔림으로서 좌거골 분쇄골절등의 상해를 입은 사실, 위 사고전주는 소외 성명미상인들이 부근 경지정리작업을 하면서 위 전주옆으로 폭 약6미터의 수로를 개설하였기 때문에 그 근가 전주를 지탱하는 밑받침대)가 파헤쳐져 노출되어 있어서 변압기제거 및 전선절단 등의 작업을 하는 경우 도괴될 위험이 있었던사실, 피고 조선전기의 직원으로서 위 공사현장대리인인 소외 2는 위 사고 약 일주일전인 같은달 13.경 위 사고전주를 현장답사하면서 위 전주가 위와 같은 도괴의 위험성이 내포하고 있는 점을 알고 있었음에도 불구하고 별다른 안전조치를 취하지 않고 예비군훈련을 이유로 위 공사현장에 가지도 아니한 채 그가 지휘, 감독하던 원고 1 등 전공들만으로 하여금 이사건 공사현장에 가 위 전주에 대한 이설공사를 하도록 방임한 사실, 원고 2는 원고 1의 처, 원고 3은 그의 자, 원고 4, 원고 5는 그의 부모, 원고 6, 원고 7은 그의 형제인 사실등을 각 인정할 수 있고 달리 반증이 없다.

According to the above facts, this incident is an agent at the site of the main poles of the defendant's protocol electrical works. Since the above owner with the circumstance of cutting the electric wires connected to the above main poles in order to move the electrical poles at the site of the above main poles is in danger of sudden collapse due to the power of the above owner's nearby the ground, it is very difficult to support the weight of the part exposed to the ground and thus, even if cutting the electric wires connected to the main poles by mobilization of the seal or by using necessary equipment, it is necessary to take all safety measures such as cutting the wires connected to the main poles so that they do not go beyond the total price of the electric poles at a time so that they can not move off the main poles, cut the wires connected to the main poles at the upper end so that they do not go beyond the total price of the electric poles, and evacuates the people to safe place, and thus, the plaintiffs were responsible for damages caused by negligence by the plaintiff 1 et al., who did not take such measures. Therefore, the plaintiffs 2 is responsible for the above damages caused by negligence.

On the other hand, according to the above evidence, the plaintiff 1, as a major with long experience, was well aware of the fact that there is a high risk of collapse of the former owner of the electric wires, and the former owner of the electric wires is obligated to take safety measures for the former owner of the electric wires, as seen earlier, and the former owner of the electric wires was involved in the above accident. The plaintiff 1's negligence was caused by the accident, and thus, it is reasonable to consider it in calculating the amount of damages to be compensated by the defendants, but it is reasonable to regard the ratio of offsetting negligence as 50/100 in light of both parties' negligence as 50/100.

2. Scope of liability for damages

(a) passive damage;

In full view of the above evidence Nos. 1-1 (No. 1-7), evidence No. 12-7 (Protocol of Statement), evidence No. 5-2 (Simplified Life Table and Contents), evidence No. 16-1, evidence No. 16-2, evidence No. 17-1, and evidence No. 17 (Evidence No. 16-2), new witness testimony of the first instance court, witness witness testimony of the first instance court, and witness testimony of the first instance court before the second instance court’s examination results of physical commission to the head of the Jeonnam University of the first instance court, it is clear that Plaintiff No. 1 sustained 87 years of age and 7 years of age as of October 6, 1958, and the average remaining life of Plaintiff No. 1 who had been employed at the right-hand side of the first instance court was no longer than 30 days of death of the above company, and Plaintiff No. 2 was no more than 30 days of death of the above company as of June 1978.

According to the above facts, from May 20, 1985 to October 19, 1985, the plaintiff 1 suffered from the above accident 5 months (the bankruptcy of the above defendant company shall be recognized and calculated as 10.19 on October 19, 1985) from May 20, 198 x 38,00 won per month, equal to the rate of 380,00 won (380,000 x 35/100, 1000 won per month, 38,000 won per month, 50,000 won per 38,000 won per month, and 106,00 won per month until 347,07,000 won per month, x 106,07,000 won per month, 57,000 won per month for which the above defendant company was bankrupt x 10,57,000 won per month until the age of x 106,57,07.

(b) Expenses for future treatment;

According to the result of the physical appraisal commission at the court of first instance as seen above, since the plaintiff 1 suffered an injury from the above accident, it is necessary to fix the right-hand sprink at the next left-hand sprink, and it can be recognized that the cost requires gold 2,500,000 won at that expense, and there is no counter-proof, so the plaintiff 1

(c) Set-off of negligence;

Therefore, the property damage suffered by Plaintiff 1 caused by the above accident is KRW 26,865,173 (=24,365,173 + 2,500,000). However, since Plaintiff 1 was negligent in the ratio as seen above, the amount to be compensated by the Defendants would be KRW 13,432,586 (=26,865,173 x 50/100).

(d) Condolence money;

In light of the empirical rule that Plaintiff 1 suffered from the injury as seen above due to the accident in this case, and as well as Plaintiff 1’s wife and parents, and the remainder of the punishment for the plaintiffs suffered from considerable mental suffering, the defendants are obligated to pay them in money. In light of various circumstances such as the plaintiffs’ age, family relation, property and education level, accident circumstance, and result, etc., as indicated in the argument in this case, the defendants should pay 1,00,000 won to Plaintiff 1, and 50,000 won to Plaintiff 3, 4, and 5,000 won to Plaintiff 6, and 7, respectively.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendants are entitled to 14,432,586 (gold 13,432,586 + 1,000 won + 500,000 won for plaintiffs 2, 300, 4, and 5 respectively for plaintiffs 300,000, 6, and 7 respectively for 200,000,000 won for plaintiffs 6, and 9,000,000 won for each of these cases for which plaintiffs are entitled to 9,00,000 won for each of these cases, from May 21, 1985 to December 11, 1987, the judgment of the court below is dismissed, and the remaining part of the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed for 9,000 won for 9,000 won for 9,000 won for 9,000 won for 9,000 won for 9,000 won for 9,000 won for each of these cases.

Judges Yu Tae-tae (Presiding Judge)