In a case where an electrical engineer of the apartment management company operated a difficult stude and caused the shock and death of a person under the supervision of the apartment bed, the case denying the exercise of the right to indemnity against the electrical engineer on the ground that there is no legal liability against the chief of the management office on the ground that there is no legal liability against the chief of the management office.

Article 756(3) of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-sung, Attorneys Lee Jong-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Housing Management Corporation

Defendant 1 and one other

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendants jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff the amount of 94,245,245 won and the amount of 5% per annum from August 2, 1991 to the sentencing day of this case, and 25% per annum from the next day to the full payment day.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants and a declaration of provisional execution.

1. The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or there is no counter-proof as to Gap evidence 1-1, 2-1, 2-1, 2-4, 5-7 (each of the following subparagraphs), Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1-1, 2-1, 2-4, 5-7 (each of these subparagraphs), and Eul evidence 1-1, and the testimony of new friendship, and there is no counter-proof.

A. The plaintiff is a multi-family housing management business operator who has obtained a license for multi-family housing management business from the head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and receives and manages multi-family housing located in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the defendant 2 is appointed as the head of the management office of the above apartment on June 1, 1989 and is in charge of all the management affairs of the above apartment complex, and the defendant 1 is a person who is employed by the head of the management office on September 23, 1989 as an electrical engineer of the above apartment management office and works as an electrical engineer of the above apartment management office.

B. At around 12:55 on February 17, 1990, Defendant 1 operated a string machine installed on the 15th rooftop of the above apartment site, and landed the director of Non-party 406 residing on the 15th rooftop of the above apartment site, and brought the string to the above 15th floor without the assistance of the 15th floor of the 406th apartment site, and caused the death of the deceased Non-party 1, who was living on the ground of the above 15th apartment site due to the string of the 15th floor, by making the string of the above 15th apartment site close to the apartment bend of the apartment bend.

C. On July 3, 1990, Nonparty 2, 3, and 4, who is the mother of the deceased Nonparty, and the sibling of the deceased, filed a lawsuit claiming damages against the Plaintiff, an employer, on the ground that the above accident was caused by Defendant 1’s negligence in the course of performing his duties, and the above court rendered a judgment of November 14 of the same year that the Plaintiff paid 50 million won per annum from February 29, 1990 to November 14 of the same year and 250 percent per annum from the next day to November 14 of the same year to the Plaintiff, which became final and conclusive on April 26, 191, and each of the above judgments became final and conclusive.

D. On January 15, 1991, the plaintiff ordered the non-party 1 and the non-party 3 to pay 40,000,000 won, which is a part of the amount ordered to pay in the above judgment, and on August 21, 198 of the above year, the plaintiff paid 47,245,245 won (40,000,000 + 47,245,245 won, in total, as all the remaining damages and damages for delay after the above Supreme Court's sentencing.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 1

A. According to the above facts, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff paid KRW 87,245,245 to Nonparty 1, etc. a sum of the damages liability due to the instant accident, as seen earlier, due to Defendant 1’s negligence, and acquired the right to indemnity against the above Defendant regarding the said amount.

In addition to the above money, the plaintiff received a claim for damages from the non-party 1 and the non-party 3, and sought reimbursement of KRW 7,000,000 from the plaintiff's attorney to the non-party 1 and the plaintiff paid the non-party 1 as a lawyer to resist the existence and scope of the plaintiff's liability for damages. However, the above attorney's fees are not the amount paid as damages to the victim of the accident of this case, but they cannot be deemed to fall under the scope of the claim for reimbursement because it cannot be deemed to be necessary expenses for the payment of damages unless there are any special reasons. Therefore, the argument about the claim for reimbursement of such

B. Meanwhile, in the event that the plaintiff's above employees suffered losses as a result of the above employees' tort, the employer may exercise the right of indemnity against the defendant 1 only to the extent deemed reasonable under the good faith principle, such as the nature and size of the business, the status of the employee, working conditions, the degree of consideration for the prevention of harmful acts or the distribution of losses, and other circumstances. In light of the above facts, the defendant's 10th clerk's 10th clerk's 5th clerk's 10th clerk's 10th clerk's 10th clerk's 10th clerk's 10th clerk's 10th clerk's 10th clerk's 10th clerk's 10th clerk's 10th clerk's 10th clerk's 10th clerk's 10th clerk's 10th clerk's 10th clerk's 10th clerk's 5th clerk's 10th clerk's 10th clerk's 10th clerk's 10th engineer's 10th clerk's.

3. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 2

The plaintiff is the cause of the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 2, and the defendant is in charge of all management and operation of the above apartment complex as the president of the management office of the apartment complex of this case. Thus, the plaintiff company's instructions and regulations should be complied with, as well as the plaintiff company's daily supervision, security and safety education for employees belonging to the management office should be thoroughly conducted so as to prevent accidents. In particular, when using the above difficulties, the plaintiff's right to indemnity against the above defendant should be exercised against the above defendant as long as it was negligent in neglecting the above care for the occurrence of the accident. In accordance with the plaintiff company's management and operation guidelines, after entering into a contract for the use of the difficult difficulties in advance with the users of the difficult difficulties, the defendant's right to indemnity against the above defendant is exercised against the above defendant.

Therefore, even if Defendant 2’s employees were to be in a position to direct and supervise the above apartment complex management office, it is the same as the above mentioned above. However, as the above employees were not in a position to direct and supervise the above apartment complex management office, it is not possible for the above employees to take charge of the management of the apartment complex’s work under the circumstances of No. 3-1, No. 2 (Guidelines), No. 4-1, No. 5 (Agreement), No. 6-1, No. 2 (Convocation of Head Office and Instructions), No. 3 (Minutes), No. 4, 57 (Notice), and No. 7-3 (Notification), and No. 8 (Notification of Claim for Compensation), and the testimony of the above witness to the above point of view that each of the above employees was not in a position to direct and supervise the apartment complex management office, and thus, it is not possible for the defendant to take charge of the management of the apartment complex under the circumstances that the employees were in a position to direct and control the apartment complex management office without any reason.

4. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is all dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Judge)