(a) Where a contractor is liable for damages caused by a contractor or his/her employee's illegal acts and where so-called supervision is conducted;

(b) The case holding that a contractor may be held liable for employer's liability for an accident caused by a subcontractor or a contractor's illegal act in light of the fact that the contractor directly directed and supervises the subcontractor's specific work performed by him/her while residing at the construction site according to the terms and conditions of the contract on the direction and supervision between the contractor

A. Unless there is gross negligence on the contract or instruction, a contractor shall not be liable for damages inflicted upon a third party on the work (Article 757 of the Civil Act). However, where a contractor has reserved the right of specific direction on the work progress and method of a contractor, the relationship between the contractor and the contractor does not substantially differ from the relationship between the contractor and his/her employee, and thus the contractor cannot be held liable for damages caused by illegal acts of the contractor or his/her employee, and this applies to the subcontract. This is the same as in the case of the subcontract. The direction of the contractor, which serves as the basis for recognition of the relationship between the contractor and the employee, refers to the management of the work itself by directly directing, supervising, and supervising the operation and execution of the work at the site in case of the construction work, and the degree of the operation and execution of the construction work does not fall under the so-called supervision, which merely supervises the process by checking whether the project is implemented in accordance with the design plan or specifications.

B. The case holding that, where an on-site supervisor of a contractor entered into an agreement with the contractor to conduct underground excavation works for building construction on a building site adjacent to another person's building and caused damage to the whole building, the contractor's on-site supervisor entered into the agreement to conduct all matters concerning the construction work at the construction site and to conduct inspections and tests of materials or structures to be used in the construction site supervisor's supervision or direction, and the contractor entered into a contract with the contractor's on-site supervisor's order to take measures to prevent a disaster, and where the contractor entered into a contract with the contractor's on-site supervisor's opinion in advance and directly directs and supervises specific construction while staying at the construction site pursuant to the above agreement, it is difficult to view that the contractor merely reserved the right of supervision, and where underground excavation works are conducted adjacent to the existing building, it is likely that the contractor might have suffered damage to the adjacent building due to vibration or soil pressure collapse, and thus, the contractor's on-site supervisor's order to prevent the accident is reasonable, unless there are special circumstances to the contractor's order or order of supervision.

Articles 756 and 757 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 83Meu1153 Decided November 22, 1983 (Gong1984, 101) (Gong1984, 101) decided August 8, 1989 (Gong1989, 1354) 90Da18432 Decided March 8, 1991 (Gong1160)

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others

U.N. Roundz.

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na32614 delivered on December 10, 1991

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

1. We examine the ground of appeal No. 1 by the Plaintiff’s attorney.

Examining the evidence established by the court below in accordance with the records, we affirm the judgment of the court below that rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant directly performed the underground excavation work of this case, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation as alleged in the lawsuit.

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the company's construction site supervision or construction work of the non-party 1 belonging to the non-party 2 at the time of construction site of the company's construction site of this case (the non-party 2 omitted) or the non-party 3's construction work of the non-party 1 belonging to the above non-party 2 at the time of construction site of the company's construction site of this case (the non-party 1's address omitted), the company's construction site supervision or construction work of the non-party 2 at the time of the above construction site of this case's construction site of this case's construction site of this case's construction site of this case's construction site of this case's construction site of this case's construction site of this case's construction site of this case's construction site of this case's construction site of this case's construction site of this case's construction site of this case's construction site of this case's construction site's construction site of this case's construction site of this case's construction site of this case's construction site's construction site of this case's construction site'

(2) A contractor shall not be liable for damages inflicted upon a third party regarding the work, unless there is gross negligence with regard to the contract or instruction (Article 757 of the Civil Act). However, where a contractor has reserved the right of specific direction with regard to the work progress and method of a contractor, the relationship between the contractor and the contractor does not substantially differ from the relationship between the contractor and his/her employee, and thus, the contractor cannot be held liable for damages caused by the contractor or his/her employee, and this applies to the subcontract. However, in the case of the construction work, the direction and supervision of the contractor, which is the basis for recognition of the relationship between the contractor and his/her employee, refers to the management of the construction work itself by directly directing, supervising, and supervising the operation and execution of the specific work at the site in the case of the construction work, and the degree of the operation and execution of the construction work merely does not fall under the so-called party supervisor (see Supreme Court Decision 83Meu15388, Nov. 23, 1983; 208Do898489).

In light of the contents of the contract on the supervision of the contractor and the fact that the head of the defendant company actually resided in the construction site and supervised the construction work in accordance with the above agreement, it is difficult to view that the defendant, a contractor, has an on-site supervisor at the construction site to have agreed to direct and supervise the operation and execution of the specific construction work conducted by the contractor, and simply reserved the so-called supervision authority to confirm whether the degree of the operation and execution of the construction work is being implemented in accordance with the design plan or specifications. Furthermore, in the case of underground excavation works adjacent to the existing building, as seen in the above, it is difficult to view that the contract owner, which is highly likely to cause damage to the adjacent building due to the vibration and soil pressure collapse occurring in the construction process, can be predicted as the contract owner, and thus the measures for the prevention of the accident are naturally subject to the direction and supervision of the on-site supervisor

In addition, it is reasonable to consider that the order of the contractor under the above contract was given to the subcontractor or the labor contractor, unless there are special circumstances. Thus, if the accident of this case occurred due to these illegal acts, the plaintiff can be held liable for the employer to the defendant.

(3) Ultimately, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the employer's liability of the contractor and incomplete deliberation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, without examining the specific direction and supervision relation of the contractor of the above defendant's contractor, and denying the employer's liability. The ground for appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Therefore, we reverse and remand the judgment of the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)