A mining right holder shall be liable for any abortion even if he/she has subcontracted his/her mining work to another person.

According to the provisions of Articles 5, 11, and 15 of the Mining Safety Act, a mining right holder shall take measures to prevent risks arising from an accident in the pits to mine minerals or from the use of powders and shall be obliged to install security facilities in accordance with the security order of the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy. Therefore, even if there is a fact that the contractor is responsible for all accidents arising during work within the boundaries of the port by the contract concluded between the mining right holder and the contractor, the mining right holder shall not be exempted from liability for damages to the bereaved family members.

Article 757 of the Civil Act, Article 5 of the Mining Safety Act

Plaintiff 1 and six others

Korea Coal Corporation (Attorney Lee Byung-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 68Na2654 delivered on May 9, 1969

The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to Seoul High Court.

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

1. According to the provisions of Articles 5, 11, and 15 of the Mining Safety Act, a mining right holder had the right to mine and acquire minerals registered within the mining area as stated in the judgment below, as the mining right holder of the mining area in which the falling-in accident occurred, as stated in the judgment below, was the defendant. According to the provisions of Articles 5, 11, and 15 of the same Act, a mining right holder had a duty to take measures to prevent hazards, such as fall, collapse, etc. in the pits for mining minerals, and to install security facilities in accordance with the security order of the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy, in other words, he had a duty to install security facilities in accordance with the security order of the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy, and even if there was an agreement that the contractor is responsible for all the claims of the plaintiffs due to the falling-in accident, the defendant who is liable for the same security as the above provision of Article 757 of the Civil Act or the above contract cannot oppose the above contract (the first issue is discussed at the time).

2. According to the original judgment regarding the defendant's assertion on offsetting negligence, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion on the ground that there is no evidence to prove that the deceased non-party 1, who was the victim due to the abortion accident, was the victim of the accident at the time of the appeal, and the non-party 2's witness's witness's witness's testimony, and there is no evidence to prove that there was a fact that the deceased received the order as alleged from the security fraternity in the above pit prior to commencement of work on the day, and there is no evidence to prove that there was an error in the rejection of the above evidence or the fact finding on the record, and there is no reason to suspect that there was an error in the rejection of the above evidence or the fact finding on the record. Accordingly, the second point of the

3. In general, even if the operating ability of the light department was determined by the time limit of 55 years of age by the collective agreement, if the light department’s retirement age was determined by the time limit of 53 years of age, barring special circumstances that would have been employed as the mining part of another mine under the same conditions as at the time of an accident after the retirement age, the maximum working age of the person employed by the light department under the agreement should be determined by the party members’ precedent. The original judgment, which is a party member’s precedent, recognized that the victim of the instant accident was a person employed by the light part of the mine in this case under a collective agreement that set the age limit of 53 and that the non-party 1 was employed by the light part of the mine in this case, without any material supporting special circumstances such as the above instruction, was the general witness of the non-party 3 and that it was operated by the drilling (the purport that the light department would normally have been 55 years of age or more) under the same conditions as at the time of an accident, there was no error in the judgment.

4. On the records, it is obvious that the defendant alleged that he paid 176,510 won to the plaintiff 1 at the time of the original judgment, and submitted Eul evidence as evidence (No. 213.230 of the record). The original judgment rejected the above Eul evidence No. 4 on the ground that the above evidence No. 1 violated the deceased non-party 1's maximum working age, average wage, and living cost acknowledged, and there was no scam which confirmed the facts as to the payment of bereaved family's compensation, and therefore, it was not deducted from the calculation amount of compensation for damages, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the argument No. 4 of the theory of lawsuit No. 4 on this point is justified.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges who acknowledge that the final appeal is reasonable by the arguments of the above three and four points. It is so decided as per Disposition by Articles 406 and 400 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Justice) Na-dong, Ma-dong, and Ma-won Park Jae-won