Workbear재주넘는곰
대법원 2006도8874

Violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (산업안전보건법위반)산업안전보건법위반

Decided2007. 03. 29. Court대법원Employer won
AI-generated English translation (summary, key points, decision summary and full text) for reference only — not an official translation and without legal effect. The Korean original below is authoritative.
AI Easy read — AI summary of this decision
AI-generated summary for reference only — the Korean original below is authoritative.

In this case, while the owner of an auto repair shop was away, the shop's factory manager (공장장) independently carried out fuel tank welding work without taking any safety measures. The Supreme Court held that the business owner could not be held liable for violating the Occupational Safety and Health Act (산업안전보건법) under these circumstances. The Court clarified that an owner's liability under this Act arises only when the owner personally ordered the hazardous work or knowingly disregarded a dangerous situation, not merely because an accident occurred at the workplace.

Key takeaways
  • CaseWhile the owner of an auto repair shop was away, the factory manager (공장장) independently performed fuel tank welding work without any safety measures, resulting in an accident.
  • OutcomeThe Court ruled that if the owner did not directly order the work and was unaware of the dangerous situation, the owner cannot be held liable under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (산업안전보건법) merely because an accident occurred at the workplace.
  • LessonBusiness owners should establish clear safety protocols for hazardous work and thoroughly train supervisors to prevent unauthorized hazardous work from occurring in their absence.
Issues
  • What are the requirements for establishing a business owner's liability for violating safety measure obligations under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (산업안전보건법)?
  • What is the scope of an owner's responsibility when an employee independently performs hazardous work in the owner's absence?
Key reasoning

Under Article 67(1) and Article 23(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (산업안전보건법), a business owner can only be criminally liable for safety violations if they either directly instructed the hazardous work or were aware of the lack of safety measures and failed to act. The mere fact that hazardous work without proper safety precautions took place somewhere in the workplace is not sufficient to establish the owner's liability. Since the owner in this case was absent and had no knowledge that the factory manager would perform unauthorized welding work without safety measures, the essential element of the owner's personal fault was missing. Therefore, the Court found that criminal responsibility could not be automatically imputed to the owner based solely on the occurrence of the accident.

Summary of Decision (English, AI translation)

[1] The crime of violating Article 67(1) and Article 23(1) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act (산업안전보건법) by a business owner is established only where it is recognized that the violation was committed by the business owner, such as where the business owner, without taking safety measures as prescribed by the Rules on Occupational Safety Standards (산업안전기준에 관한 규칙) at the workplace he or she operates, instructed that work involving the safety risks set forth in Article 23(1) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act be carried out, or knowingly left such work to proceed without the required safety measures being taken. It is not established merely by the fact that such risky work was carried out at the business owner's workplace without the necessary safety measures being taken.

[2] In a case where, while the business owner was away, the manager of an automobile repair factory arbitrarily accepted a request for welding work on a fuel tank and carried it out without taking the necessary safety measures, the court held that the business owner could not be held responsible for failing to fulfill the duty to take safety measures prescribed in Article 23(1) of the Industrial Safety and Health Act.

Full text (English, AI translation) 4,554 chars

[Defendant] Defendant
[Appellant] Prosecutor
[Lower Court Judgment] Daegu District Court Judgment 2006No1762, decided November 16, 2006

[Order]

The appeal is dismissed.

[Reasoning]

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 67, Item 1 of the Industrial Safety and Health Act (산업안전보건법, hereinafter the "Act") provides for the punishment of a person who violates Article 23(1) of the Act. Article 23 of the Act provides in paragraph (1) that a business owner shall take necessary measures to prevent risks set forth in each item, occurring in the course of conducting business, including risks arising from explosive, ignitable, and inflammable substances, etc. (Item 2), and delegates in paragraph (4) the matters concerning the safety measures to be taken by the business owner pursuant to paragraph (1) to be prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor. Pursuant to this delegation, the Regulation on Industrial Safety Standards (산업안전기준에 관한 규칙, hereinafter the "Regulation") was enacted, specifically prescribing the necessary measures to be taken by the business owner to prevent risks according to the type of work, etc. With respect to welding work on fuel tanks, as in this case, Article 267 of the Regulation provides that a business owner shall not cause welding, cutting, or other work using fire, or dangerous work that may generate sparks, to be performed on pipes, tanks, drums, or other containers in which there is a risk of the presence of hazardous substances, inflammable oils other than hazardous substances, or combustible dust, unless measures to prevent explosion or fire have first been taken, such as removing inflammable oils other than hazardous substances, combustible dust, or hazardous substances. Meanwhile, Article 71 of the Act (before amendment by Act No. 7920 of March 24, 2006) separately provides a basis for punishing the business owner even where the violation of the Act was committed by a person other than the business owner. Considering the above provisions comprehensively, the offense of violating Article 67, Item 1 and Article 23(1) of the Act against a business owner is established only where it is recognized that the violation was committed by the business owner, such as where the business owner instructed that work involving the safety risks set forth in Article 23(1) of the Act be performed at a workplace operated by the business owner without taking the safety measures prescribed by the Regulation, or where the business owner knew that such work was being performed without the safety measures having been taken and nevertheless left it unaddressed. The offense is not established merely by the fact that such risky work was performed at the business owner's workplace without the necessary safety measures having been taken.

Based on the evidence it adopted, the court below found that the Defendant could not have anticipated at all that the factory manager, Non-Indicted, would, while the Defendant was away, arbitrarily accept a request for welding work on a fuel tank—work that he had customarily refused to undertake even upon request, due to the risk of explosion—and would carry out such welding work without taking the safety measures necessary to prevent explosion or fire, at the automobile repair factory operated by the Defendant. On this ground, the court below held that the Defendant could not be held responsible for failing to fulfill the safety measure obligation prescribed in Article 23(1) of the Act, and accordingly found the Defendant not guilty of the violation of Article 67, Item 1 and Article 23(1) of the Act. This, in effect, means that, on the premise that the offense of violating Article 67, Item 1 and Article 23(1) of the Act is established only where the violation was committed by the business owner, the violation committed by Non-Indicted as described above cannot be regarded as constituting a violation of Article 67, Item 1 and Article 23(1) of the Act by the Defendant. In light of the legal principles set forth above, the judgment of the court below is justified, and there is no error of law therein based on a misunderstanding of the legal principles concerning the risks that a business owner must prevent and guard against under Article 23(1) of the Act.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and this judgment is rendered in accordance with the unanimous opinion of the Justices participating in the decision, as stated in the Order.

Justice Jeon Su-an (Presiding Justice), Ko Hyeon-cheol, Yang Seung-tae (Justice in Charge), Kim Ji-hyeong

【판결요지】

[1] 사업주에 대한 산업안전보건법 제67조 제1호, 제23조 제1항 위반죄는, 사업주가 자신이 운영하는 사업장에서 산업안전기준에 관한 규칙이 정하고 있는 바에 따른 안전조치를 취하지 않은 채 산업안전보건법 제23조 제1항에 규정된 안전상의 위험성이 있는 작업을 하도록 지시하거나, 그 안전조치가 취해지지 않은 상태에서 위 작업이 이루어지고 있다는 사실을 알면서도 이를 방치하는 등 그 위반행위가 사업주에 의하여 이루어졌다고 인정되는 경우에 한하여 성립하는 것이지, 단지 사업주의 사업장에서 위와 같은 위험성이 있는 작업이 필요한 안전조치가 취해지지 않고 이루어졌다는 사실만으로 성립하는 것은 아니다.

[2] 사업주가 자리를 비운 사이에 자동차정비공장의 공장장이 연료탱크의 용접작업을 임의로 의뢰받아 필요한 안전조치를 취하지 아니한 채 실시한 사안에서, 사업주에게 산업안전보건법 제23조 제1항에 규정된 안전상 조치의무를 다하지 아니한 책임을 물을 수 없다고 한 사례.

【참조조문】

[1] 산업안전보건법 제23조 제1항, 제67조 제1호, 구 산업안전보건법(2006. 3. 24. 법률 제7920호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제71조, 산업안전기준에 관한 규칙 제267조

[2] 산업안전보건법 제23조 제1항, 제67조 제1호, 구 산업안전보건법(2006. 3. 24. 법률 제7920호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제71조, 산업안전기준에 관한 규칙 제267조

【주문】·【이유】 전문 1,740자 · 펼쳐 보기

【피 고 인】 피고인

【상 고 인】 검사

【원심판결】 대구지법 2006. 11. 16. 선고 2006노1762 판결

【주 문】

상고를 기각한다.

【이 유】상고이유를 본다.

산업안전보건법(이하 ‘법’이라고 한다) 제67조 제1호는 법 제23조 제1항을 위반한 자를 처벌한다고 규정하고 있는데, 법 제23조는 제1항에서 사업주는 폭발성, 발화성 및 인화성 물질 등에 의한 위험(제2호) 등 사업을 행함에 있어서 발생하는 각 호에서 정한 위험을 예방하기 위하여 필요한 조치를 하도록 규정하면서, 제4항에서 위 제1항에 의하여 사업주가 하여야 할 안전상의 조치사항은 노동부령으로 정하도록 위임하였고, 이에 따라 제정된 산업안전기준에 관한 규칙(이하 ‘규칙’이라고 한다)은 작업의 종류 등에 따라 위험을 예방하기 위하여 사업주가 취하여야 할 필요한 조치들을 구체적으로 규정하면서, 이 사건과 같이 연료탱크 용접작업에 관하여는 제267조에서 사업주는 위험물, 위험물 외의 인화성 유류 또는 가연성 분진이 존재할 우려가 있는 배관·탱크 또는 드럼 등의 용기에 대하여 미리 위험물 외의 인화성 유류·가연성 분진 또는 위험물을 제거하는 등 폭발이나 화재의 예방을 위한 조치를 한 후가 아니면 용접·용단 기타 화기를 사용하는 작업 또는 불꽃을 발생시킬 위험한 작업을 시켜서는 아니된다고 규정하고 있으며 한편, 법 제71조(2006. 3. 24. 법률 제7920호로 개정되기 전의 것)는 사업주가 아닌 자에 의하여 위 법 위반행위가 이루어진 경우에도 사업주를 처벌할 수 있도록 하는 근거 규정을 별도로 두고 있는바, 위 규정들을 종합하여 보면, 사업주에 대한 법 제67조 제1호, 제23조 제1항 위반죄는 사업주가 자신이 운영하는 사업장에서 법 제23조 제1항에 규정된 안전상의 위험성이 있는 작업을 규칙이 정하고 있는 바에 따른 안전조치를 취하지 않은 채 하도록 지시하거나, 그 안전조치가 취해지지 않은 상태에서 위 작업이 이루어지고 있다는 사실을 알면서도 이를 방치하는 등 그 위반행위가 사업주에 의하여 이루어졌다고 인정되는 경우에 한하여 성립하는 것이지, 단지 사업주의 사업장에서 위와 같은 위험성이 있는 작업이 필요한 안전조치가 취해지지 않고 이루어졌다는 사실만으로 성립하는 것은 아니라고 할 것이다.

원심은 채택한 증거에 의하여, 피고인으로서는 공장장 공소외인이 피고인 운영의 자동차정비공장에서 평소 폭발의 위험성 때문에 의뢰를 받더라도 작업을 거절해 오던 연료탱크의 용접작업을 피고인이 자리를 비운 사이에 임의로 의뢰받은 다음, 폭발이나 화재의 예방을 위하여 필요한 안전조치를 취하지 아니한 채 그 용접작업을 실시하리라고 전혀 예상할 수 없었기에, 피고인에게 법 제23조 제1항에 규정된 안전조치의무를 다하지 아니한 책임을 물을 수 없다는 이유로, 피고인에 대한 법 제67조 제1호, 제23조 제1항 위반의 점에 대하여 무죄로 판단하였는바, 이는 결국 법 제67조 제1호, 제23조 제1항 위반죄는 그 위반행위가 사업주에 의하여 이루어진 경우에만 성립한다는 전제하에 위와 같은 공소외인의 위반행위가 있었다 하여 피고인에게 법 제67조 제1호, 제23조 제1항 위반행위가 있었다고 볼 수 없다는 취지이므로, 원심의 위와 같은 판단은 앞서 본 법리에 비추어 정당하고, 거기에 법 제23조 제1항의 사업주가 예방, 방지하여야 할 위험에 관한 법리를 오해한 위법이 있다고 할 수 없다.

그러므로 상고를 기각하기로 하여 관여 대법관의 일치된 의견으로 주문과 같이 판결한다.

대법관 전수안(재판장) 고현철 양승태(주심) 김지형

Related statutes

Similar cases

Cases with high content similarity to this one.

#1
2006노1762 · 대구지방법원 2006-11-16
산업안전보건법위반
#2
2020도9188 · 대법원 2022-07-14
업무상과실치사·산업안전보건법위반·업무상과실치상
#3
2009도12515 · 대법원 2011-09-29
산업안전보건법 위반·업무상과실치사
#4
2013도3242 · 대법원 2014-08-28
산업안전보건법위반
#5
2004도8875 · 대법원 2006-01-12
산업안전보건법위반

Cases citing this decision

2014도3542 · 대법원 2014-05-29
산업안전보건법위반
2009도12515 · 대법원 2011-09-29
산업안전보건법 위반·업무상과실치사
2009도13252 · 대법원 2010-11-11
산업안전보건법위반·업무상과실치사
2008도7834 · 대법원 2010-09-09
Violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act and Deat
2008도7030 · 대법원 2009-05-28
Occupational Negligence Resulting in Death and Violation of

Related tools & guides

AI answers need an account (free accounts: 2 per month) — submit and you'll return to this question after logging in. Search and case reading stay free.

Cross-check the original: 국가법령정보센터 (auxiliary link)