2. Seocho-gu;

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

3. 3/4 of the costs of lawsuit is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder 1/4 is assessed against the Defendants, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Until the delivery date of the book, 5% per annum, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

shall pay the money by means of money.

A. The facts of recognition (1) occurrence of accidents and the status of the Defendants (A) around 05 July 15, 2001: around 40, the Plaintiff, at around 1315, concentrated rain, which came from the front of the promotion apartment zone located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government at the time (from the 14th day of the same month to the 15th day of the same month, 327mm in total, and 01:0:0 on the 15th day of the same month to the 06th day of the same month; hereinafter referred to as the “road, etc.” in this case) on the front of the promotion apartment, where the Plaintiff walked a road with a height of 130 centimeters from the sidewalk base to the 00 meters high from the sidewalk base.

A person who suffered from an electric shock accident due to the leakage of such accident is a person who has suffered from an injury, such as the panstrophism in the left part (hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case").

(B) The Seocho-gu, where the street of this case is located (hereinafter referred to as the "road of this case"). The Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as the "City/Do") owned by the defendant 20 meters or more wide. The defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City delegated the maintenance and management of the street of this case and electric facilities of this case, which are accessories to the road of this case under Articles 5 and 16 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Management of Road Facilities (Seoul Municipal Ordinance No. 3760), to the head of Seocho-gu, the head of the Gu having jurisdiction over the management of the street of this case. Accordingly, the defendant Seocho-gu maintained and managed the street of this case at the time of the accident of this case. (2) At the time of the accident of this case, the street of this case, etc. of this case were supplied with all sections of the street of this case, etc. installed at a place less than 50 meters away from that of the road of this case, and there was no danger of exposure to the electric wire of this case.

(B) At the time of installation, the stabilization machine of the instant street lamps installed above the 60cm away from the ground in accordance with the Korean Industrial Safety Standards established by the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy at the time of installation, but thereafter, the floor was increased and flooded on the ground at the time of the instant accident at the time of the instant accident, which was installed at a level of 40cm away from the ground, and it was in a situation where it was difficult to effectively block any electric shock, and actually, at the time of the instant accident, A et al. died due to a shock caused by the electric shock of the instant street, etc. at the vicinity of the accident site.

C. The Electric Safety Corporation conducted a safety inspection of the street, etc. of this case three times from 1997 to 2001, and conducted a safety inspection of the street, etc. of this case, and the street, etc. of this case did not have a leakage circuit breaker, and notified the defendant Seocho-gu of the decision inappropriate for the reason that the contact situation is inappropriate. While the defendant knew that more than 80% of the street, etc. of this case is being charged, the defendant also did not take measures to fundamentally block the leakage source on the grounds that it was budgetary reasons and it is expected that the road of this case will expand the road of this case. (D) The road of this case was flooded even when it was concentrated on 192 and 198. (3) The measure at the time of the accident of this case was taken.

The Defendants did not take safety measures, such as restricting residents’ passage to the vicinity of the instant road by making a request to the police and installing a ice rink, etc., even though the instant road had been flooded as above, and demanding the Korea Electric Power Corporation to cut off the risks that may arise from the leakage of the instant street, etc. in advance.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Gap evidence No. 15-7 through 11, and the result of this court’s on-site inspection, the result of this court’s commission of physical examination to the head of the Gyeonghee University Hospital, the purport of the whole pleadings.

B. Determination

(1) According to the above facts, the accident of this case did not automatically cut off the power failure even though the street, etc. was in the state of leakage, and the stability engine installed on the street, etc. of this case was exposed to the body of the electric wires in part of the input and output cable connecting part, and it was installed more than the standard and could not function as a stabilizer on the wind easy for flooding. The outer part of the street, etc. of this case was not connected with the protection of the road of this case, and it was at the risk of shocking the water leakage electricity under the ground because the outer part of the street, etc. of this case was not connected with the protection site, and the road of this case was flooded up to a height of 130cm from the ground surface, and safety measures such as blocking the road were not taken even if there was a high risk of the electric shock accident resulting therefrom, and management defects of the street, etc. of this case were caused by the safety defect of the street itself of this case and management defects of the street, etc. of this case.

(2) The road of this case is the Special Metropolitan City (City/Do), which is owned by the defendant, and the defendant Seoul Metropolitan City delegated the maintenance and management of the street of this case, which is an accessory to the road of this case, to the head of Seocho-gu pursuant to the Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on the Management of Road Facilities, and accordingly, the defendant Seocho-gu maintains and manages the street of this case. The above delegation constitutes an agency delegation. In the case of the agency delegation, the delegated agency is performing its affairs in the position of an administrative agency under the jurisdiction of the local government under the jurisdiction of the local government to which the delegated agency belongs. Thus, in the case of causing damage to others due to the defect of the public agency constructed and managed by the delegated agency, the local government to which the delegated agency belongs is liable under Article 5 of the State Compensation Act (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da1120, Jun. 25, 199). Thus, the defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the construction and management of the road of this case, which belongs to the head of Seocho-gu 2, the management agency of the road of this case.

C. Limitation on liability

In light of the facts acknowledged earlier, the plaintiff, as a concentrated, has a large volume of approximately 130§¯ in the height of the sidewalk standard, and at the time, there was a dangerous situation that the road in this case should take safety measures, such as bypassing, and thus, it was erroneous in passing the road in this case and caused the accident in this case. The plaintiff's mistake contributed to the occurrence and expansion of the accident in this case. Thus, it is reasonable to consider the amount of damages to be compensated by the defendants as 15% in consideration of the overall circumstances. Thus, the defendants' responsibility is limited to the remaining 85% except for the above fault ratio.

2. Scope of damages.

(a) Facts of recognition and assessment of actual income (1) (a) Gender: Male;

Date of birth: December 27, 1951

Age at the time of accident: 49 years and 7 months;

Residential area: Seoul (b) occupation and income of an urban area: The Plaintiff was working as a taxi driver in Seoul at the time of the accident, and the income was income amounted to KRW 1,569,870 per month ( = 52,329 won x 30 days). (c) The retirement age and maximum working age as a taxi driver are until the date on which the retirement age reaches the age of 55, and the operation period of an ordinary worker for urban day reaches the age of 60 on December 27, 2006, and until the date on which the retirement age reaches the age of 60. From December 26, 2011, the Plaintiff could have worked as an urban daily work as of December 22, 200, and from December 2006 to December 25, 2006, the average working age of 55,250 won per day of an urban wage for an adult male worker in the year 2006,000 won (hereinafter referred to as “work loss rate of 10: 10: 1.10.1.1.1.

From August 1, 2001 to November 27, 201: 10% from July 15, 2001 to July 31, 201, from November 28, 201 to December 26, 201: 4% (2) x 7. 5 days from July 15, 201 to July 31, 207 x 50 x 20. 5 x 16. 5 x 20 x 3. 5 x 1. 5 x 20 x 3. 5 x 1. 5 x 17 x 0 x 17 x 0. 35 x 35 ,584 x 1. 25 x 20 x 1. 5 x 1. 1. 27. 29 x 1. 25 x 1. 205 x 1. 5 x 20

(b) Expenses for medical treatment: 4,343,380 won;

C. Fruits offset (11, 711, 987 won + 4, 343, 380 won) x 0.85 x 0.85 x 0. (1) The Plaintiff was already paid 45,751,720 temporary disability compensation benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, medical expenses and medical care expenses, and 14,510,920 won, disability lump sum 5,180,640 won. (2) The amount remaining after deducting the above temporary disability compensation benefits and disability lump sum from the amount remaining after deducting the medical expenses and medical care expenses from the remaining amount after offsetting the negligence from the treatment expenses.

(e) consolation money;

Considering the developments leading up to the occurrence of the instant accident, degree of negligence of the Defendant, property damages, and other various circumstances shown in the pleadings, consolation money shall be set at KRW 3,00,000.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 12-1 to 6, the result of the commission of physical appraisal to the president of the Hung University Hospital in this court, the result of fact inquiry to the Seoul Vice-Governor of the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendants are obligated to pay to each plaintiff 3,00,000 won and damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act from July 16, 2001 to August 16, 2006, which is deemed reasonable for the defendants to dispute about the existence or scope of the performance obligation of this case, since July 16, 201, which was sought by the plaintiff, and 20% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as there is no justifiable reason.

Judges Lee Young-young

Judges Choi Ho-young