A. At around 13:14, February 1, 2019, C (D) coming from the residential area located in Changwon-si, Changwon-si, the direction of the sub-Dong-dong village and entered the water pool of the instant river for the purpose of digging up the breadth from Changwon-si E located in Changwon-si, Changwon-si (hereinafter “the instant river”). Around February 13:14, 2019, C (D) went to the water pool of the instant river for the purpose of digging up the breadth, and died due to satisfaction with the Manle (hereinafter “the instant Manle”).

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

The heir of the deceased C (hereinafter referred to as the "the deceased") has the Plaintiff and G, who is a child.

C. The instant river is a manager of the Defendant as a local river (Article 8(2) of the River Act), and the authority over the administrative affairs, such as the maintenance and repair of a river, is delegated to the Mayor of the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

(Reasons for Recognition) The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings under Article 2 (1) 1. [Attachment 1] of the Ordinance on Delegation of Administrative Affairs

2. “Defects in the construction or management of river or any other public structure” under Article 5(1) of the State Compensation Act refers to a state in which a river or any other public structure fails to have ordinary safety according to the purpose of its use. Whether such safety is satisfied shall be determined based on whether the manager has fulfilled the duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required in proportion to the danger of the public structure such as the river, etc., by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the purpose of the public structure such as the river, the present state of the place of its installation and the situation of its use.

The circumstances that can be seen by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the statements and images of the evidence mentioned above, Gap evidence No. 3, Eul evidence No. 2, and Eul evidence No. 2, i.e., the manle of this case located in the river of this case, was left in the vicinity of the river of this case, and the existence of the manle of this case was not sufficiently visible, and there was a person approaching the river.