Gwangju Hakdong Disaster 3rd Trial... HDC Hyundai Development "No Obligation for Building Safety Measures"

Prosecutors Reveal Key Evidence List Including Contracts and Meeting Minutes... "Deep Involvement in Demolition Work"

[Asia Economy Honam Reporting Headquarters Reporter Park Jin-hyung] HDC Hyundai Development Company, the main party responsible for the Gwangju Hakdong disaster, continued to refute the charges of professional negligence causing death during the third trial.

The Gwangju District Court Criminal Division 11 (Presiding Judge Jeong Ji-seon) held a hearing on the morning of the 8th regarding the case.

The defendants include seven construction-related personnel from HDC Hyundai Development Company, Hansol Enterprise, Baeksol Enterprise, and three companies.

The defense attorneys for HDC Hyundai Development site manager Seo (57) argued that the contractor's duty to ensure safety is limited to the 'workers,' not the 'building.' In other words, HDC Hyundai Development has no obligation to take safety measures for the collapsed Hakdong building.

The defense cited Article 28 of the Building Act, which states 'prevention of hazards at construction sites by the constructor,' arguing, "Considering its intent, the Industrial Safety and Health Act should also be viewed as a regulation to protect worker safety."

They continued, "The prosecution claims that the contractor also has a duty of care under the contract, but the actual contract provisions impose obligations on the subcontractor, Hansol Enterprise."

They further contended that HDC Hyundai Development acted as an 'intermediary' between the building manager (owner, etc.) and the demolition contractor, and that the prosecution is expanding the duty of care under the Building Management Act, which does not exist, based on social norms.

The defense emphasized, "There was a similar collapse accident in Jamwon-dong, Seocho-gu, Seoul, and in that case, the site manager in the position of the constructor who selected the demolition company was not even indicted."

The defense stated, "According to Article 38 of the Industrial Safety and Health Act and other regulations, the employer is imposed with a limited duty to take safety measures in special hazardous situations. However, Article 63 of the same law does not have such limitations, and imposing a broader duty of care on the contractor than on the employer would create an unreasonable situation."

Following this, the prosecution proceeded with the examination of evidentiary documents.

The prosecution presented key evidence, including the contract between the Redevelopment Maintenance Project Association and HDC Hyundai Development, which included demolition work, and materials seized from HDC Hyundai Development headquarters showing internal recognition of management and obligations regarding demolition work, along with related documents.

The demolition contract between HDC Hyundai Development and Hansol stipulated HDC Hyundai Development's supervisory duties and authority to give construction instructions, which was disclosed.

According to seized items related to Hansol Enterprise, the daily work report on the day of the accident indicated that more workers than usual were mobilized and instructed to spray water. Excessive water spraying is identified as one of the causes of the collapse.

The minutes of a meeting held on April 2, attended by HDC Hyundai Development personnel, included a building diagram showing soil filling and an excavator placed on top for demolition.

This serves as evidence that contradicts HDC Hyundai Development's claim of non-involvement in demolition methods, proving that they actually shared the methods with the subcontractor.

In the afternoon, cross-examination of Baeksol's CEO and excavator operator Jo (47) by the defense counsel will take place.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.