2. B

3. C.

4. D;

5. E.

6. F;

2. Substitute Construction Company;

A. The Defendants paid to each of the Plaintiffs A 15,800,000 won, 14,000,000 won to the Plaintiff C, and 53,580,671 won to the Plaintiff C, 35,187,113 won, respectively, and 5% per annum from July 28, 2011 to February 9, 2015, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the total litigation costs, 40% is borne by the Plaintiffs, and 60% is borne by the Defendants, respectively.

4. The provisional execution of the part of paragraph 1 (a) may be effected.

A. On February 14, 2007, Defendant Daedae Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) shares at the Round Construction Co., Ltd.

At the time of the strike from the Public Procurement Service, the construction cost of J-A-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-

B. On August 208, in order to use the instant valley as a vehicle for construction in the course of performing a bridge construction project connecting the instant valley from the L tunnel to the M tunnel, the Defendant Company: (a) obtained approval from Defendant Gyeonggi-do for the construction of a temporary road between the above terminal and the starting part of the time point; and (b) stored the instant valley in December 2008 and opened the said valley through a road on the ground (hereinafter referred to as “the instant embankment,” “the instant temporary road,” and “the instant construction”). (c) on December 208, 2008, the Defendant Company: (d) stored the instant valley, 9.5 meters away from the road to the crossing; and (e) performed the construction of opening the said valley on the ground (hereinafter referred to as “the instant dam,” “the instant temporary road,” and “the instant construction”).

C. The Defendant Company made the instant embankment, and laid two fumes in diameter at the bottom of the embankment for the purpose of draining the downstream from the upstream of the instant valley to the downstream (hereinafter “the instant fume”).

A person shall be appointed.

D. At the point from the temporary road and the dam of this case, approximately 50 meters to the lower 600 meters of the instant valleys, buildings of “X rest area operated by S and “N” (hereinafter “X rest area,” “N”) were located at the point where N and the instant valleys located on the right side of the valleys are located at the point where N and the instant valleys are located. The location of the bands is as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

E. On July 27, 2011, accumulated daily rain 337 meters in the area where the instant temporary road and N are located, and the amount of rainfall by time zone measured by the office of the Pjuju City is as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

F. Due to the above storm, water collected on the valleys of the instant valleys did not emit the downstreams of the instant embankment, and continuously coming down with water level. At around July 27, 201, around 19:20, a large amount of water was released from the valleys of the instant valleys on a temporary basis. Accordingly, some of X rests and N were flooded and collapsed. The network H and network G, which were N around that time, was missing (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

G. On July 29, 2011, at N around 11:15, the body of G was found at a point 700 meters away from N to the lower west of 7,00 meters. The deceased H’s body was not found, and on May 30, 2014, the government District Court 2013B20 decided that the deceased H was missing on July 29, 2011.

H. The deceased H’s children are Plaintiff A, B, and network G. The spouse of the deceased G is Plaintiff C, and his children are Plaintiff D, E, and F.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 13, 22, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 (including each number if there are serial numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4 (including each serial number), the paper of the first instance court witness R, the result of the first instance court’s verification of the first instance court, the Administrator of the Korea Meteorological Administration, the second instance court’s fact inquiry into the market, the purport of the whole pleadings, as a result of the whole.

2. Whether the accident of this case occurred due to the loss of the embankment of this case

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiffs asserted that the rainwater, which was collected at the upstream of the instant valley, was not discharged from the instant embankment, was accumulated down in the instant valley strust by the loss of the instant embankment, and that the N was killed or went missing by the net H and G, which was in the N, was involved in the water.

(2) As to this, the Defendants asserted that the Deceased was involved in the instant accident, not in N, but in water coming from the instant valley, and was faced with the instant accident by being 0,000 water flowed from the instant valley, or caused the instant accident by any other factor.

B. Determination

According to Gap evidence Nos. 16 and 19, W, Q, and first instance trial witnesses' testimony, ① on July 27, 201, the date of the instant accident, G 17:00, G 200, and W 1:00 work at the X stop, and the water level was 1/3 of the instant dam out of the valley, and the water level was 5:00,000 nearby Q 1:0, Q 1:00, Q 2, which was found to be the same as the water level near the instant dam. 6:0, W 1:00, Q 1:00, which was found to be the same as Q 3:0,000 nearby the instant building; W 1:0,000 G 1:0,000, Q 1:0,000, which was found to be the same as Q 3:0,000 adjacent to the instant building.

According to the above facts, it can be recognized that the accident of this case occurred due to the exposure of rainwater that has been collected in the upper upstream of this case as the embankment of this case was lost, due to the dynasty of the valley of this case. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' assertion is with merit, and the defendants' assertion is without merit.

3. Whether there was any defect in the installation and management of the instant embankment

A. The parties' assertion

(1) When the Defendants installed the instant embankment, the Plaintiffs did not properly install only two rest pipes of this case, the diameter of which was 1m in order to drain the instant valley, and did not properly manage the drainage even when they get out of rain, and caused the instant accident by making the instant embankment flown with high water, which did not discharge the water, and caused the instant embankment to be flown away. The Defendants asserted that the instant accident was caused by the Defendants’ intentional or negligent act, or by the defects of the posts installed and managed by the Defendants.

(2) As to this, the Defendants did not flow over the instant valleys, and there was no special problem with regard to drainage, even if they were to take a large amount of water in the instant valleys from around September 2010 to around September 18, 2010 from the time when the instant embankment was installed, there was no special problem with regard to drainage, and the Defendant Company did not commit negligence with regard to the installation and management of the instant embankments and temporary roads, and there was no defect in installation and management on the instant embankments and temporary roads, and the instant accident occurred due to a natural disaster that was not avoided by the Defendants.

B. Judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion

According to the testimony of the witness R of the first instance trial and the witness of the first instance trial (the defendant company's on-site director), it is recognized that the mountain of the day in which the embankment of this case is located has been fluorted into the valley of this case by entering a mountain as it is almost as it is, and that the mountain of the day in which the embankment of this case is located has been collected by the valley of this case, and that if the ground near the embankment of this case has been deteriorated considerably, it is considerably weak, it is recognized that a large quantity of soil and rocks and low trees, etc. have been used as the valley of this case depending on water at many places in the tunnel construction site where the defendant company performs.

In addition to the above facts, under the following circumstances acknowledged by the testimony and purport of the 13rd Witness R and the entire pleadings, i.e., R testified that there was no knowledge as to whether it was equipped with safety devices to prevent fume from being obstructed due to earth and rocks or trees at the time of designing the instant embankment; ② there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant Company designed and installed the instant embankment and temporary roads in consideration of the above matters, or that the Defendant Gyeonggi-do approved the temporary road construction of the Defendant Company’s company in consideration of the above matters; ③ there was no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendants had regularly inspected the working conditions of the said chest; ④ there was no evidence to prove that R had no capacity to clean or manage the said fume at the time of its on-site director’s work; ④ The Defendant asserted that the installation of the instant concrete fume in the process of construction of the instant structure and the installation of the instant water fume, but it is difficult to find that the Defendants’ installation of the instant water fume and the installation of the instant water fume can be resolveded without giving an objective.

Therefore, the accident of this case occurred due to the defect in the installation and management of the embankment of this case in the defendant Gyeonggi-do, or the negligence in the installation and management of the embankment of this case by the defendants. Thus, pursuant to Article 2 or 5 of the State Compensation Act, the defendant Gyeonggi-do is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case pursuant to Article 750 of the Civil Act.

C. Determination as to the defendants' assertion

The Defendants asserted that the amount of rainfall due to the instant storm was the maximum during the period from 2001 to 2011, and that the maximum amount of rainfall by hour was the maximum during the said period from 18:00 to 20:00 hours from which the instant storm was concentrated, and that it constitutes a natural disaster, and that it is difficult to view that the Defendants could have avoided the instant accident by taking an accident preventive measure in such a case.

However, in a case where there is no possibility of expectation and avoidance of damage due to any defect in the function of the public structure in time and place from an objective point of view, that is, the defect in the construction and management of the public structure can not be recognized if the defect in the construction and management of the public structure is under circumstances where the management act by the construction manager of the public structure could not have been performed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da65678, Sept. 21, 2007). However, the Defendants, at non-faceh, he stored the instant embankment in an area where soil and trees were easily used in the instant valley, and performed large-scale civil construction works, but he did not take measures to prevent damage due to soil and trees, and the Defendants did not have any possibility of being able to accept the instant dam from 00 times to 10 times in light of the circumstances where the instant accident occurred, as seen above W.

D. The limitation of liability caused the instant accident by taking into account all the circumstances revealed in the instant pleadings, including the developments leading up to the execution of the instant construction, the developments leading up to the occurrence of the instant accident and the consequences thereof (such as QT, in which the network was present, could have been unlikely to have caused the instant accident if he/she promptly left the instant accident. Furthermore, it is reasonable to limit the Defendants’ liability ratio to 60% by taking into account all the circumstances revealed in the instant pleadings, including the developments leading up to the implementation of the instant construction, the developments leading up to the construction of public structures, the construction design and the defect contents of the construction.

4. Calculation of damages;

A. The net H part

(1) Active damages

According to the purport of the entire pleadings, it is recognized that Plaintiff A paid KRW 3,00,000 as funeral expenses. However, since the Defendants’ liability ratio is 60% as seen earlier, Plaintiff A’s active damages amounted to KRW 1,800,000 (-3,000,000 x 0.6).

(2) Consolation money

Considering the age of the deceased H (the age of 68 years at the time of the accident), family relations, the details and result of the accident (such as the body of the deceased is not recovered), occupation, property, and level of education, and other various circumstances shown in the argument of this case, consolation money for the deceased H shall be determined as KRW 30,000,000, and consolation money for the plaintiff A and B, who are their children, as KRW 4,000,000, respectively.

(3) Inheritance relationship

The deceased H’s children are Plaintiff A, Plaintiff B, and the deceased in the same peril as the deceased H. As recognized earlier, it is presumed that the deceased was simultaneously deceased pursuant to Article 30 of the Civil Act. However, even in this case, inheritance by representation is made (see Supreme Court Decision 99Da13157, Mar. 9, 2001). As such, Plaintiff A, Plaintiff B, Plaintiff C ( network G’s wife), Plaintiff D, E, and F ( network’s children) are the deceased H’s heir. The inheritance shares are calculated in succession by one-3, one-third, one-third, one-third, one-third, one-third, and/9 (i/3 x 3/9 x 3/9), two/27 ( = 1/3 x 2/9 x 2/9) x 2/27 x 2/9 2/27 x 2/9) (see Table 2/133/4).

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to pay to each of the Plaintiffs A 15,800,000 won [the funeral expenses + 1,800,000 won + 10,000,000 won for the deceased’s inheritance amount + 10,000,000 won (i.e., 30,000,000 won X1/3)]; 14,000,000 won [ = 4,00,000 won for the deceased + 10,000,000 won for the deceased’s inheritance + 3,3333 won for the deceased’s funeral expenses + 30,000,000 won for the deceased’s inheritance amount + 20,000 won for each of the following reasons: 30,000,000 won for 20,000 won for the deceased’s death and 20,201.37,20,201.

A person shall be appointed.

B. The net G part

(1) Active damages

According to the purport of the entire pleadings, it is recognized that Plaintiff C paid KRW 3,00,000 as funeral expenses. However, since the Defendants’ liability ratio is 60% as seen earlier, the Plaintiff C’s active damages amounting to KRW 1,80,000 (=3,000,000 x 0.6).

(2) The lost profit.

On the basis of the facts of recognition and assessment as follows, the lost income loss lost by the deceased G due to the instant accident is the amount calculated at the present price at the time of the accident according to the Hofmanial Calculation Act that deducts intermediary interest at the rate of 5/12 per month as the plaintiffs seek as follows:

[Ground of recognition] The entry, empirical rule, and purport of the whole pleading as to Gap evidence No. 5

(A) Facts and evaluation of the recognition;

① Gender, age, and life expectancy: Net G is a healthy male of AA student, and the net G is about 41 on July 27, 201, which was at the time of the instant accident, and about 37.47 years.

② Job and income status: The net G has been residing in AB in Incheon City, and the daily wage for the part of the city newsletter at the time of the instant accident is KRW 72,415 per day.

(3) Maximum working age: By the 22th day of each month until the age of 60.

(4) Cost of living: 1/3 of income.

(b)Calculation;

72,415 won ¡¿ 22 days ¡¿ 157.4605 ¡¿ 2/3 = 167,236,690 won

(C) Limitation of liability

However, the Defendants’ liability ratio is 60% as seen earlier, so the net profit of the network G is 1342,014 won (=167,236,690 won x 0.6).

(3) Consolation money

Considering the age, family relation, history and consequence of the accident, occupation, property, and level of education of the network G, and other various circumstances revealed in the argument of this case, the consolation money for the Plaintiff C, which is the wife, shall be determined as KRW 30,000,000, KRW 500,000, and KRW 4,000,000, respectively, for the consolation money for the Plaintiff A and B, who are their children.

(4) Inheritance relations

The damage claim of the deceased G amounting to KRW 130,342,014 (i.e., KRW 1342,014 + KRW 30,00,000) against the Defendants of the network G succeeded to KRW 2/9 by Plaintiff C, who is the wife, and Plaintiff A, Plaintiff B, and deceased G, who is the wife, succeeded to KRW 3/9.

(5) Calculation (see the following table):

Therefore, the Defendants: (i) KRW 50,247,338 to each Plaintiff C [Funeral Funeral Expenses + KRW 5,000,000 + 33,447,38 (102,014 x 3/9) inheritance amount of the deceased + KRW 10,000,000 inheritance amount of the deceased; (ii) KRW 32,964,891, respectively (i) KRW 4,000 + KRW 22,298,2250 per annum from the next day of each inheritance amount of the deceased + KRW 33,447,338 (10,014 x 3/9) + KRW 10,000 (i) inheritance amount of KRW 30,000,000; and (iii) KRW 62,000 per annum,00 per annum, 206,6066.36,606,000 per annum of inheritance amount of the deceased; and (ii)

A person shall be appointed.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendants are obligated to pay to each of the plaintiffs A the above KRW 15,800,00 and KRW 14,580,671 (=the above KRW 3,33,333 + the above KRW 50,247,338 + the above KRW 35,187,113 + each of the above KRW 222,222 + each of the above KRW 32,222 + each of the above KRW 32,964,891) and each of the above KRW 5% per annum from July 28, 2011 to February 9, 2015, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment. Thus, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are justified within the scope of recognition, and the remainder of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed. Thus, the plaintiff's claims of this case are without merit. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance is justified.

Judges Kim Gung-sik

Judges Lee Young-young

(ii) the meaning of the Korean language advance: High paths and Stockpiling letters with soil and stones;

(iii) Article 30 (Simultaneous Death);

If two or more persons die in the same peril, they shall be presumed to have died simultaneously.