beta
Text
1. The Defendant: KRW 43,300,259 for the Plaintiff, and KRW 5% per annum from September 10, 2017 to September 22, 2020 for this.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On August 2017, the Defendant concluded a contract for construction works on the instant reinforced soil repair works (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Plaintiff at the construction site of the Namyang-si, Nam-si, which completed the construction of the housing site at the end of the end of August, 2017.
B. From September 8, 2017 to September 10, 2017, pursuant to the instant contract, the Plaintiff continued the instant construction in accordance with the Defendant’s employee D’s order. On September 10, 2017, the Plaintiff was subject to an accident in which the vibration roller was shaking and felled at approximately five meters high without the center of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant accident”).
C. In the instant accident, the Plaintiff received hospitalized treatment from September 10, 2017 to March 9, 2018 on the grounds that he/she suffered injuries in spine, gale, gale, gale, and gale, etc.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, 6, Eul evidence 1 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. Generally, since the occurrence of the liability for damages is not related to the direction and supervision between the contractor and the contractor, the contractor does not be liable as the employer for the illegal acts committed by the contractor or his employees, but in the case of the so-called labor contract such as where the contractor directs a specific act against the contractor or awarding a specific project, the contractor is liable as the employer even if he is the contractor.
(1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to enter into the instant contract on November 10, 2005 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da37676, Nov. 10, 2005). However, even though the Plaintiff and the Defendant were to enter into the instant contract, it is reasonable to deem that the instant contract constitutes a labor contract, since an employee of the Defendant actually directed and supervised the Plaintiff’s work at the site, and that an employee was given a contract