2. B

3. C.

4. D;

5. E.

6. F;

Plaintiff 5 and 6 are minors, and they are legal representatives C and MaD

2. The Busan Metropolitan City Shipping Daegu;

2. The plaintiffs' respective remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, 80% is borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder is borne by the Defendants.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

(a) Facts of recognition;

1) Plaintiff A’s wife, Plaintiff B, and C are the children of the network G, Plaintiff D’s wife (Plaintiff C’s wife), Plaintiff E, and F are the grandchildren of the network G (Plaintiff C’s children).

2) Pursuant to Article 8(2) of the River Act, the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor/Do governor, who is the Mayor/Do governor within his jurisdiction, as a local river, shall be responsible for the management of the local river, and the maintenance and repair of the local river and the inspection of the status of the river management by the Busan Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Delegation of Administrative Affairs, shall be delegated to the head of the Busan Metropolitan City Shipping Authority (hereinafter referred to as the "head of the Shipping Authority").

3) On June 3, 2013, 21:28, the deceased on December 25, 2013 (hereinafter “instant accident”) (i.e., death on December 25, 2013 during which he/she was hospitalized at a hospital as he/she fell under the bank below approximately 4.6m of embankment and was hospitalized in a way that he/she gets hospitalized at the hospital, after drinking alcohol on the wall for the protection of the boundary of the instant river; (ii) around 21:28, 2013; and (iii) died on June 25, 2013 (hereinafter “instant accident”). [In the absence of any dispute; (iv)

B. Determination

1) According to the facts of recognition as to whether the Defendants are in the position of the construction and manager of public structures or the person in charge of the maintenance and management of the river of this case, the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor is the person in charge of the maintenance and management of the river of this case, and the person entrusted with the maintenance and management of the river of this case is responsible for the maintenance and management of each river of this case. Thus, if causation between the defects in the construction and management of the river of this case and the accident of this case is acknowledged, the defendant Busan Metropolitan City, which is the local government to which the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor belongs, the local government to which the head of the Busan Metropolitan City belongs, is the person in charge of the delegated affairs, shall be liable for each of them pursuant to Article 6(

2) Whether there is a defect in the installation and management of the instant river

The term "defect in the construction or management of a public structure" under Article 5 (1) of the State Compensation Act refers to a state in which the public structure fails to have safety ordinarily required in accordance with its purpose of use. It shall be determined on the basis of whether the person in charge of construction and management has fulfilled the duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the danger of the public structure, comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as the purpose of use of the public structure in question, the status of its installation and its use, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da88903, Sept. 25,

In light of the above legal principles, the accident point of this case is about 4-5 meters that can cause death in case a person falls with a river embankment and embankment, and about 20 centimeters in concrete protection wall that can prevent the fall of a cruel mother (less than 20cm in low width), and even if the accident point is not a place where pedestrians usually provide pedestrian walking, the passage of people around the subway station is relatively frequent, and since the sidewalk block installed for pedestrians' passage is used as a parking lot, it is easy for people to access the road, and in case a person falls with a view to maintaining a balance with a driver or a child, it is necessary to fall within the scope of 50cm.

Therefore, the instant river is defective in the installation and management without installing safety fences, etc. to prevent people from falling, and the instant accident occurred due to such defects. As such, the Defendants are liable to compensate the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to defects in the construction and management of public structures pursuant to Article 2 of the State Compensation Act.

C. Limitation on liability

However, the above concrete protection wall was installed to prevent the vehicle from falling mainly at an area where a parking is possible, and the deceased, sitting above and fall on the protection wall while under the influence of alcohol, and the resting space where a person was seated next to it, and the deceased was installed separately, and the deceased was well aware of the condition of the gys and embankments. Since such error was the major cause of the accident of this case, it is reasonable to set the deceased’s negligence at 90%.

2. Scope of damages.

(a) Expenses incurred in relation to the treatment of king (the disbursement of the plaintiff C): 17,62,954 won (the entries in the evidence No. 6-1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings);

(b) Nursing expenses;

1) According to the records of No. 10, and the fact-finding with respect to the head of the High University Uniform Hospital of this court, the deceased was in need of occasional care during the hospitalization period except for the area of water surface (16 hours = 2 hours - 8 hours). The opening of the opening of the G H was in receipt of KRW 5,00 per day from the Plaintiff C for 206 days during the hospitalization period from June 3, 2013 to June 12, 2013, and was in receipt of KRW 5,00 per day from the Plaintiff C for 206, and it can be recognized that the Plaintiff opened the deceased except for the opening of the opening of the G, the opening of the opening of the H was in need of 0.5 hours per day (16 hours per day from June 3, 2013 to 206). Accordingly, the deceased’s opening of the Plaintiff A, other than the opening of the H, is assessed as 10.5 hours per day (4 hours and 16 hours per hour from the opening).

2) Calculation ①) The opening costs paid by Plaintiff C: 11,30,000 won (=the opening costs of 5,000 won per day)

(2) The opening costs under the opening of Plaintiff A: 8,535,485 won (-- 81,443 won urban daily wage from June 3, 2013 to August 31, 2013 x 0.5 x 90 days from June 3, 2013 to August 31, 2013 x 83,975 won urban daily wage from September 1, 2013 to 25, 2013 x 0.5 x 16 days from September 1, 2013 to December 25, 2013).

③ Total amount: 19,865,485 won (=1,30,000 won + 8,535,485 won, and the nursing expenses for the above recognition, only Plaintiff C claims for the above recognition, and Plaintiff A did not demand a separate claim therefor. Thus, Plaintiff C’s damages are deemed to be the Plaintiff C’s losses)

(c) Funeral expenses: Three million won (the fact that the plaintiff C has no dispute).

(d) Set-off of negligence;

1) Liability ratio of the Defendants: 10%

2) Set-off of negligence with respect to the technical expenses, nursing expenses, and funeral expenses paid by the Plaintiff C: 4,052,843 won [The same shall apply hereinafter] = (17,62,954 won + 19,865,485 won + 3 million won + X 10%, but less than KRW 3 million].

1) Reasons for taking into account: The deceased’s age, family relation, background and result of the instant accident at the time of the instant accident, the grounds for limitation of liability as seen earlier, and other various circumstances revealed in the instant argument.

(ii) the amount determined;

(1) Deceased: 10 million won;

② Plaintiff A: 5 million won

③ Plaintiffs B and C: 1.5 million won each.

④ Plaintiff D, E, and F: 500,000 won, respectively.

(f) Inheritance relationship;

(a) Amount of inheritance: 10 million won of consolation money of the deceased; and

2) Inheritor and share of inheritance: Inheritance by the proportion of the Plaintiff A, the deceased’s spouse, Plaintiff B, and C, the deceased’s children, at the rate of 3:2:2.

(iii) calculation;

① Plaintiff A: KRW 4,285,714 (i.e., KRW 10 million X3/7)

Plaintiff B and C: 2,857,142 won (=10 million X2/7)

G. Damages of each plaintiff

1) Plaintiff A: KRW 9,285,714 (= proper consolation money of KRW 5 million + Shares of inheritance 4,285,714) of deceased’s portion of consolation money

2) Plaintiff B: KRW 4,357,142 (i.e., unique consolation money of KRW 1.5 million + Shares in inheritance of consolation money of the deceased 2,857,142)

3) Plaintiff C: 8,409,985 won (=property damage 4,052,843 won + unique consolation money of KRW 1.5 million + the deceased’s share of inheritance of consolation money of KRW 2,857,142)

4) Plaintiffs D, E, and F: 500,000 won per unique consolation money.

G. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally obligated to pay to Plaintiff A KRW 9,285,714, KRW 4,357,142, KRW 8,409,985, KRW 500,000 to Plaintiff C, and KRW 500,000 to Plaintiff D, E, and F, and each of the following day following the instant accident that the Plaintiff seeks. From June 4, 2013 to August 21, 2014, the date of this judgment, the Defendants’ dispute over the existence and scope of the obligation to perform is considerably limited to KRW 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act, and damages for delay at a rate of 20% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Senior Superintendent and Senior Superintendent

Judges Postal Crimes