메이저 바카라

1. Case Overview

a. Party Represented by Barun Law
A subcontractor and its officers and employees.

b. Background 메이저 바카라 Case
Company A (the client) is a specialized construction company that had been subcontracted by a major construction firm to perform mechanical works as part of a mixed-use development project. In March 2025, a tragic accident occurred at the site in which a worker employed by another subcontractor was struck and killed by residual concrete debris that fell from above while the worker was performing exterior wall work using an aerial work platform.

Investigative authorities initiated an investigation on the premise that debris generated by Company A's work may have fallen and caused the accident, based on the fact that Company A was performing "dry core drilling work" on the upper floors above the accident site at the time 메이저 바카라 incident. Accordingly, Company A became subject to investigation on charges of violating the Occupational Safety and Health Act and causing death by an industrial accident under the Serious Accidents Punishment Act.


2. Our Arguments and Role

This case presented a serious risk that Company A could be held responsible, given the strong circumstantial evidence that the timing 메이저 바카라 accident coincided with the timing 메이저 바카라 upper-floor work. We therefore focused on severing the causal link between the accident and the client's work through analysis of objective physical evidence.

We analyzed the structure 메이저 바카라 "dry core drill bit" used by Company A at the time 메이저 바카라 accident, as well as work footage, demonstrating that the cut concrete core would be lodged inside the bit, making natural falling of debris highly unlikely. We further substantiated, through worker statements and other evidence, that residual materials were separately collected and disposed of after completion 메이저 바카라 work.

From a legal perspective, we also strongly argued that the deceased was an employee of another company with no employment relationship with Company A, and therefore Company A did not owe a duty of safety measures as an "employer" under the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Moreover, we asserted that Company A and the deceased worker's employer were merely in a horizontal contractual relationship, each having been independently contracted by the same main contractor, and that Company A therefore bore no liability as a contractor.


3. Outcome and Significance

This case involved a situation in which the client faced the risk of unjust criminal liability based solely on circumstantial overlap between the location 메이저 바카라 accident and the timing of work. In particular, following the enforcement 메이저 바카라 Serious Accidents Punishment Act, investigative authorities have applied strict standards to construction-site fatality cases, making defense especially challenging.

Nevertheless, we focused our defense on the absence of a plausible causal relationship between the work performed by Company A and the victim's death. As a result, the competent labor authority and prosecution exceptionally decided to close the internal investigation with a finding of no suspicion not only for alleged violations 메이저 바카라 Serious Accidents Punishment Act, but also for violations 메이저 바카라 Occupational Safety and Health Act.

This case demonstrates that even where investigative authorities harbor strong suspicions due to temporal proximity between work and an accident, a scientific analysis 메이저 바카라 structural characteristics of work tools and the physical properties of on-site evidence can clearly establish the absence of causation, thereby allowing for non-indictment. It is a precedent worthy of reference in future falling-object accident cases.


□ Attorneys in charge: Lee Sang-jin, Kang Tae-hun, Kim Ji-hee, Lee Yun-sang, Han Min-guk