Cases where the employer liability is recognized prior to the transfer of the Korean Electric Power Corporation

If Non-party 4, who is a Korean Electric Power Company, designed to be completed in the future without using detailed materials, was designed at a level of 1.7 meters from the high voltage of 3,300 volts to prevent the high voltage of 3,300 volts, and the (trade name omitted) electric power plant as a result of the construction performed by the company (the operator of the electric power plant) is not less than 50 cent meters from the side of the completed construction and the high voltage line, and thus, Non-party 6, who was engaged in the construction built on the second floor of new building, was reduced to reduce the above high voltage line by putting it down on the 2nd floor of new building, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damages caused by the negligence of Non-party 4, who is his employee.

Article 756 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Korea Electric Power Corporation

Seoul Central District Court (67Ga11800) in the first instance trial

(1) Of the original judgment on the Plaintiff 1’s property damage, the part against the Defendant, which exceeds the Defendant’s payment of KRW 500,000 to the said Plaintiff at an annual rate of 5% from August 25, 1967 to the full payment date, shall be revoked.

(2) The above plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above cancellation part is dismissed.

(3) The above plaintiff's claim for consolation money and the defendant's appeal against the plaintiff 2 are dismissed.

(4) All the costs of lawsuit in the first and second instances between the plaintiff 1 and the defendant are divided into three parts, and the remainder is assessed against the plaintiff 1 and the defendant, and the costs of appeal against the plaintiff 2 are assessed against the defendant.

The attorney of the plaintiff et al. shall pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount of KRW 1,847,805, KRW 300,000 and an amount of KRW 5% per annum from August 25, 1967 to the date of full payment.

The judgment that the lawsuit cost shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution are sought.

The defendant-appellant shall revoke the part of the original judgment against the defendant.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff et al.

(1) On the 5th anniversary of the outcome of the examination of records at the court below, the non-party 1 and 2 testimony at the court below's 5th appraisal, and the non-party 4, who is an employee of the company, has been in charge of the design work of the non-party 4 while working at the south of Seoul company, and the non-party 5, who will have been in charge of the construction work of the non-party 5's new construction work at the 8th anniversary of the fact that the above construction work was presumed to have been carried out by the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's testimony at the time of the above construction work, and the non-party 5's new construction work was carried out by the non-party 1 and the non-party 3's testimony at the time of the above new construction work (the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's new construction of the above new construction work at the intervals of the non-party 4's new construction work at the end of the new construction work.

If so, this accident is caused by the negligence of the non-party 4, who is an employee of the defendant company, due to the negligence in the execution of the affairs of the non-party 4 (the non-party 5, the owner of the building), the defendant is responsible for compensating for the damages caused by the negligence.

(2) Next, according to Gap evidence Nos. 1 (No. 1) and Eul evidence No. 3 (Simplified Life Table) without dispute over the establishment of the health care unit with respect to the property damage suffered by the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 1 was born on November 1, 1938 and was 28 years old at the time of the accident, and the average remaining life of the plaintiff 1 was 31.47 years at the time of the accident, and the remaining life of the plaintiff 1 was 60 years old. Thus, according to the witness Gap evidence No. 5 (construction Notice) without dispute about the establishment of the health care unit, the wage of the construction labor unit at the time of the accident can be recognized as 315 won or more at the time of the accident, 300 days at the time of the above accident, 300 days at the time of the above accident 】 50 days after the total income of the above 40 years old x 50 years old 50 years old x 30 years old 50 years old x 26 years old 50 days after the accident.

Meanwhile, according to the facts found above, since the high-tension line was installed at intervals of 60 cent meters from the building and at the intervals of 60 cents to the extent that ordinary adults are able to contact the above rooftop of the building, it can be recognized that the approach would be dangerous if ordinary attention is given. Thus, even though his own damage caused by a electric shock accident should be avoided by exercising due care, the above plaintiff is able to find out the circumstances where the non-party 6, who worked on the rooftop of the building, was approaching the high voltage line and falling down at the high voltage line, and caused the accident. Thus, the plaintiff, the victim, was negligent in the above plaintiff, and it is reasonable to determine the amount of damages that the defendant should compensate for to the above plaintiff.

(3) According to the above evidence No. 1 as to the claim for consolation money, it is recognized that Plaintiff 2 was the wife of Plaintiff 1, and thus, Plaintiff 1 suffered injury to Plaintiff 1’s above recognition, and it can be easily recognized in light of the empirical rule that Plaintiff 2, his wife, and Plaintiff 2, his wife, suffered severe mental pain.

Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay consolation money to the plaintiff, etc.

Furthermore, considering the age of the plaintiff, etc., who can be recognized by the statement of the above Gap evidence 1, the background of the accident, the degree of the plaintiff's injury suffered by the plaintiff 1, his negligence, and other various circumstances shown in the arguments, it is reasonable that the defendant should pay 100,000 won to the plaintiff 1 as consolation money and 30,000 won to the plaintiff 2 as consolation money.

(4) If so, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 1 the sum of the above recognition's property damage and consolation money to the plaintiff 600,000 won and damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum from August 25, 1967 to the date following the occurrence of the accident, respectively, as consolation money. Thus, the plaintiff et al.'s principal claim shall be justified to the extent of the above recognition, and the remainder shall be dismissed with unjustifiable reasons. The original judgment on the plaintiff 1's property damage which differs from this purport is unfair to the part against the defendant other than that properly maintained at the trial, and this part shall be revoked in accordance with Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the original judgment on the plaintiff 2 and the original judgment on the plaintiff 1 shall be justified as with the purport of the original judgment, and the defendant's appeal shall be dismissed in accordance with Article 384 of the same Act, and the costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant as well as the costs of appeal (including the costs of appeal) under Article 96, Article 95 and Article 985 of the same Act.

Judges Noh Jeong-hee (Presiding Judge)