Open Decision Ledger · Labour & industrial accidents
Ten-year limitation for breach of an employer's protective duty under the employment contract
Supreme Court, Aug. 19, 2021, 2018Da270876 (judgment)
Case name: 손해배상(산)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Does an employer owe an employee a protective duty under the ancillary obligation of good faith arising from the employment contract, and where that duty is breached, is the employee's damages claim subject to the 10-year civil limitation period of Article 162(1) of the Civil Act rather than the 5-year commercial limitation period of Article 64 of the Commercial Code, even though the employment contract is an ancillary commercial act?
Holding
The employer must. As a duty of care ancillary to the employment contract and grounded in good faith, the employer must take such measures as organising the human and material environment so that the employee's life, body and health are not harmed in the course of providing labour, and is liable in damages where a breach causes loss. Even where the employment contract concluded by a merchant for the business is an ancillary commercial act, the legal relationship surrounding that claim concerns compensation for harm to the employee's life, body and health and is not by its nature standardised or in need of swift resolution, so Article 64 of the Commercial Code does not shorten the period. Unless there are special circumstances, the 10-year civil limitation period applies.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
따라서 근로계약상 보호의무 위반에 따른 근로자의 손해배상청구권은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 10년의 민사 소멸시효기간이 적용된다고 봄이 타당하다.
Unofficial English translation
Accordingly, it is appropriate to hold that, absent special circumstances, the ten-year period of civil extinctive prescription applies to the employee's right to claim damages arising from a breach of the duty of protection under the employment contract.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 인천지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Incheon District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
사용자는 근로계약에 수반되는 신의칙상의 부수적 의무로서 근로자가 노무를 제공하는 과정에서 생명, 신체, 건강을 해치는 일이 없도록 인적·물적 환경을 정비하는 등 필요한 조치를 강구하여야 하는 보호의무를 부담하고
Unofficial English translation
The employer bears a duty to protect the employee as an ancillary duty under the principle of good faith arising from the employment contract to take necessary measures, such as arranging the human and material environment so that no harm is caused to the employee's life, body, or health in the course of the employee providing labor, and
Factors
- 근로자가 노무를 제공하는 과정에서 생명, 신체, 건강을 해치는 일이 없도록 인적·물적 환경을 정비하는 등 필요한 조치를 강구하여야 하는 보호의무를 부담하고
- 대량, 정형, 신속이라는 상거래 관계 특성상 법률관계를 신속하게 해결할 필요성이 있기 때문이다
- 근로자의 생명, 신체, 건강 침해 등으로 인한 손해의 전보에 관한 것으로서
- 그 성질상 정형적이고 신속하게 해결할 필요가 있다고 보기 어렵다
- 특별한 사정이 없는 한
Unofficial English translation
• the employer bears a duty of protection to take necessary measures, such as arranging the human and material environment so that no harm is caused to the employee's life, body, or health in the course of the employee providing labor, and
• because, given the characteristics of commercial transaction relationships—bulk, standardization, and speed—there is a need to resolve legal relationships swiftly
• this being compensation for damage caused by infringement of the employee's life, body, or health, and
• it is difficult to regard it as, in its nature, one that is standardized and requires swift resolution
• absent special circumstances,
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2005. 11. 10. 선고 2004다22742 판결(공2005하, 1948)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2004Da22742 decided November 10, 2005 (Gong 2005 Ha, 1948)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1999. 2. 23. 선고 97다12082 판결(공1999상, 538), 대법원 2006. 9. 28. 선고 2004다44506 판결 / [2] 대법원 2005. 11. 10. 선고 2004다22742 판결(공2005하, 1948)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What special circumstances would displace the 10-year civil limitation period for a claim for breach of an employer's protective duty?
An amendment to Article 162(1) of the Civil Act or Article 64 of the Commercial Code, or a later decision narrowing the protective duty or the reach of the 10-year period, would require this entry to be read again. The remand judgment, once it fixes the date from which the period ran and decides the remaining grounds of appeal, will show how the rule works on these facts.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on all 8 axes.
Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The court below is the Incheon District Court, to which the Supreme Court remanded the case; the official text does not give the date and number of its judgment. As the reasons describe it, the court below found the employment contract between the plaintiff and the defendant to be an ancillary commercial act, applied the 5-year commercial limitation period of Article 64 of the Commercial Code to the plaintiff's damages claim and held that the limitation period had expired. The defendant ran a wholesale agricultural produce business in Incheon and concluded the contract with the plaintiff around 13 February 2007.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the court below had misread the law on the limitation period governing a claim for breach of the protective duty ancillary to the employment contract, and that the error affected the judgment. It therefore set the judgment aside and sent the case back to the Incheon District Court, leaving the remaining grounds of appeal undecided. On the protective duty itself the Court followed Supreme Court Decision 97Da12082 and Supreme Court Decision 2004Da44506, and on the limitation period it followed the reasoning of Supreme Court Decision 2004Da22742.
Distinguishing conditions
- A claim whose legal relationship is by its nature standardised and needs swift resolution, so that the reason Article 64 of the Commercial Code gives for the 5-year period still holds.
- A claim founded on something other than breach of the protective duty ancillary to the employment contract, since the Court's holding is addressed to that duty.
- A case in which special circumstances displace the 10-year period, which the Court expressly left open.
Record verification notes
First identify the basis of the claim: whether it is the employer's protective duty ancillary to the employment contract, rather than a general tort claim, and whether the contract is an ancillary commercial act under Article 47 of the Commercial Code. Then work out when the period began to run, since the decision itself does not fix the date, and search the file for the special circumstances the Court reserved. The facts here, a pallet accident on 14 December 2007, surgery on 4 January and 18 August 2008, treatment benefits applied for around 10 October 2008 and a skin graft around 26 October 2011, show how far apart the accident and the further injury can be.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 사용자가 근로계약에 수반되는 신의칙상의 부수적 의무로서 근로자의 안전에 대한 보호의무를 부담하는지 여부(적극) 및 이를 위반하여 근로자가 손해를 입은 경우 손해배상책임을 지는지 여부(적극) [2] 근로계약상 보호의무 위반에 따른 근로자의 손해배상청구권에 대하여 10년의 민사 소멸시효기간이 적용되는지 여부(원칙적 적극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether the employer bears a duty to protect the safety of the employee as an ancillary duty under the principle of good faith arising from the employment contract (affirmative), and whether, in the event the employee suffers damage by a breach thereof, the employer is liable for damages (affirmative) [2] Whether the ten-year period of civil extinctive prescription applies to the employee's right to claim damages arising from a breach of the duty of protection under the employment contract (affirmative in principle)
Summary of the holding
[1] 사용자는 근로계약에 수반되는 신의칙상의 부수적 의무로서 근로자가 노무를 제공하는 과정에서 생명, 신체, 건강을 해치는 일이 없도록 인적·물적 환경을 정비하는 등 필요한 조치를 강구하여야 하는 보호의무를 부담하고, 이러한 보호의무를 위반하여 근로자가 손해를 입었다면 이를 배상할 책임을 진다. [2] 상법 제64조에서 5년의 상사시효를 정하는 것은 대량, 정형, 신속이라는 상거래 관계 특성상 법률관계를 신속하게 해결할 필요성이 있기 때문이다. 사용자가 상인으로서 영업을 위하여 근로자와 체결하는 근로계약이 보조적 상행위에 해당하더라도 사용자가 근로계약에 수반되는 신의칙상의 부수적 의무인 보호의무를 위반하여 근로자에게 손해를 입힘으로써 발생한 근로자의 손해배상청구와 관련된 법률관계는 근로자의 생명, 신체, 건강 침해 등으로 인한 손해의 전보에 관한 것으로서 그 성질상 정형적이고 신속하게 해결할 필요가 있다고 보기 어렵다. 따라서 근로계약상 보호의무 위반에 따른 근로자의 손해배상청구권은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 10년의 민사 소멸시효기간이 적용된다고 봄이 타당하다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 인천지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Incheon District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 민법 제2조, 제390조, 제655조 [2] 민법 제2조, 제162조 제1항, 제390조, 제655조, 상법 제47조, 제64조
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger