Place of service

Representative Director A

Law Firm Gyeong, Attorney Lee Jae-sik et al.

Attorney Choi Yong-seok

Representative of the Gu

Attorney Jeong-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. 1) B, around 01:13 on February 11, 2017, driven by C rash special vehicles (hereinafter referred to as “fluoral vehicles”) and driven by the yellow-line line in the center of the yellow-line line in order to pass left at the right intersection where the yellow-ray destruction, etc. is installed, while driving a one lane later than 300 meters later from the front intersection of the front intersection in the northwest-gu, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-do, and driving a one lane from the front intersection of the front intersection in order to pass left at the right intersection where the yellow-ray destruction, etc. is installed.

2) In this process, B shocked the part of the driving seat of the damaged vehicle that has left the left in the direction of the spoiral spondal spondal spondal spondal spondal spondal spoke, and due to the shock, the part of the first side of the damaged vehicle was pushed down (hereinafter “the accident in this case”) while the damaged vehicle was pushed down in the direction of the spondal spondal spokes in the direction of the spondal spondal spokes.

B. 1) The degree of the instant accident site is as follows, and E, due to the said accident, has been killed in light of the left-hand body blood transfusion, etc. requiring treatment for about four weeks, and G (hereinafter “the deceased”) who is the chief players of the damaged vehicle, has died due to the cardiopulmonary suspension due to the damage to both the two sides, the mouth of the damaged vehicle, and the multiple long-term damage.

A person shall be appointed.

2) At the time of the instant accident, the weather was dried up and there was no traffic obstacle.

C. On February 27, 2020, the Plaintiff concluded a mutual aid agreement with the owner of a Maritime Vehicle with respect to a Maritime Vehicle (from March 25, 2016 to March 25, 2017) and agreed with the deceased’s bereaved family members by paying KRW 520 million as compensation for damages caused by the instant accident to the deceased’s bereaved family members on February 27, 2020.

D. The road section of the front intersection road in which the instant accident occurred is managed by the Defendant, and the Defendant partially removed the end portion of the Railsday in this case after the said accident, and installed the shock absorption facilities.

E. Relevant provisions of Part III vehicle protection safety facilities of the Guidelines for Installation and Management of Road Safety Facilities (hereinafter referred to as the “Guidelines”) publicly notified by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport are as follows:

3.3 Installation place and installation 3.3.1 installation place and installation 3.3.1 installation place and 3.3.1 installation installation shall be installed at a place with a higher risk of accidents among places where collisions of the following vehicles are anticipated. (a) The entrance and exit point shall be connected before and after the intersection. The front end of the fee-free fence or soundproof walls may be installed at a place where the road manager considers that there is a high risk of accidents; (b) the front end of the fee-free fence or soundproof walls; and (c) the tunnel and underground car gate may be installed at a place where the road manager considers that there is a high risk of accidents:

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The allegations by the parties and the determination thereof

A. The parties' assertion

1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

The place where the accident of this case occurred is ‘the entrance quarter point' and the date of this case is ‘the steel protection fence'. The defendant did not perform this even though it installed and managed the shock absorption facilities on the part of the part of the Dr. The defect in the construction and management of the above defendant’s road has contributed to the occurrence of the accident of this case and the expansion of damages, and it is reasonable to view that the ratio of liability is 20%. Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay to the plaintiff the indemnity amount of 140 million won (=520 million won x 20%) from among the mutual aid amount paid by the plaintiff to his bereaved family members, and the compensation for delay is obliged to pay to the plaintiff the amount of indemnity amount of 50 million won (=520 million won x 20%) and the compensation for delay.

2) The defendant's argument

The instant accident place is not a place with a high risk of accident, and even according to the instant guidelines, there is no obligation for the Defendant to install a shock absorption facility on the part of the end of the instant guard day, so it cannot be said that there is a defect in the construction and management of the road. Rather, the instant accident was caused by gross negligence of the driver of a sea-going vehicle who overtaken two preceding vehicles by overcoming the central line at the time of the accident. Thus, the Defendant is not liable for the instant accident.

B. Determination

1) “Defects in the construction and management of a public structure” under Article 5(1) of the State Compensation Act refers to a state in which the public structure, which was offered for public purposes, fails to have safety requirements ordinarily required depending on its use. Whether such safety requirements are satisfied should be determined based on whether the installer or manager of the public structure fulfilled his/her duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the risk of the public structure. Furthermore, the financial, human, and physical restrictions, etc. of the installer or manager thereof should also be taken into account. Therefore, even in the case of a road which is a public structure, it cannot be readily concluded that there is a defect merely because it does not have high level of safety to the extent that it maintains the complete state of construction and management, and it is sufficient to say that the method of use by the person using it is expected to have relative safety (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da208074, Oct. 24, 2013).

2) According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 4 and 12 as to the instant case, it is difficult to view the location of the instant accident as a place where there is a high risk of accident in light of the record Nos. 4 and the record Nos. 4 as to the instant case, in light of the health zone, the weather zone or the road at the time of the instant accident, and the overall purport of evidence Nos. 4 and 12 as follows: (a) the date of the instant accident; and (b) the instant accident is difficult to view the location of the instant accident as a place where there is a high risk of accident; and (c) the instant accident caused the collision of the damaged vehicle while passing two or more preceding vehicles by harming the center line of the yellow cell line; and (d) caused the shock of the damaged vehicle due to the shock, and the circumstances leading to the shock of the said dives, the evidence cited by the Plaintiff alone alone does not have any defect in the dives of the instant accident at the time of the instant accident, or there is no other evidence supporting the installation and management of the instant facility.

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit to examine the remainder of the issue.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.