[1] The requirements to impose a duty to take safety measures on a business owner pursuant to Article 67 subparag. 1 and Article 23(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act

[2] The case holding that a business owner cannot be held liable for failing to take safety measures under Article 23 (1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, in case where the head of a factory of a motor vehicle maintenance factory, which was located in the place of business, arbitrarily requested the contact work of a fuel tank and did not take necessary safety measures

[1] A business owner’s violation of Articles 67 subparag. 1 and 23(1) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act is established only when the business owner’s act of violation is deemed to have been committed by the business owner, such as ordering the business owner to perform a dangerous work in safety under Article 23(1) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act without taking safety measures as prescribed by the rules on the industrial safety standards at his/her place of business operated by him/her, or neglecting it despite being aware of the fact that the above work was performed without taking such safety measures. However, it is not established solely on the fact that the above dangerous work was performed without taking necessary safety measures at the business owner’s place of business

[2] The case holding that a business owner cannot be held liable for failure to take safety measures under Article 23 (1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, in case where the head of a factory of a motor vehicle maintenance factory, which was located in the place of the business, arbitrarily requested a fuel tank contact work and did not take necessary safety measures

[1] Articles 23(1) and 67 subparag. 1 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, Article 71 of the former Occupational Safety and Health Act (amended by Act No. 7920 of Mar. 24, 2006), Article 267 of the Rules on Industrial Safety and Health / [2] Articles 23(1) and 67 subparag. 1 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, Article 71 of the former Occupational Safety and Health Act (amended by Act No. 7920 of Mar. 24, 2006), Article 267 of the Rules on Industrial Safety and Health

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daegu District Court Decision 2006No1762 Decided November 16, 2006

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 67 subparag. 1 of the Industrial Safety and Health Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) provides that a person who violates Article 23(1) of the Act shall be punished. Article 23(1) of the Act provides that a business owner shall take measures necessary for the prevention of any danger that may arise in the course of carrying out the business, such as explosives, combustible or inflammable substances (Article 23). Paragraph (4) of the same Article provides that safety measures to be taken by a business owner under the above paragraph (1) shall be prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor. Article 67 of the Act provides that a business owner shall take measures necessary for the prevention of danger according to the type of work (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”). Article 267 of the Act provides that a business owner shall take measures necessary for the prevention of danger, such as the removal of inflammable or inflammable substances from a place of business without being aware of the danger of danger, such as dangerous substances, and Article 267 of the Act provides that a business owner shall not take measures for the prevention of danger and danger, such as fire or flame, etc.

Based on the evidence adopted, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the violation of subparagraph 1 of Article 67 and Article 23 (1) of the Act against the defendant on the ground that the non-indicted 2's act was committed in violation of Article 67 subparagraph 1 and Article 23 (1) of the Act on the ground that the defendant cannot be held liable for failing to take safety measures under Article 23 (1) of the Act on the ground that the non-indicted 2's act was committed in violation of Article 67 subparagraph 1 and Article 23 (1) of the Act on the ground that the non-indicted 2's act was committed in violation of Article 67 subparagraph 1 and Article 23 (1) of the Act on the ground that the non-indicted 2's act was committed in violation of Article 67 subparagraph 1 and Article 23 (1) of the Act on the ground that it cannot be deemed that there was a violation of Article 67 subparagraph 1 and Article 23 (1) of the Act on the ground that the crime was committed by the business owner.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)