beta
(영문) 수원지방법원안양지원 2016.01.14 2014가단102515

손해배상(국)

Text

1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 500,00 for each of the Plaintiff A and the Plaintiff B and C, respectively, and the Defendant from June 13, 2013 to January 2016. < Amended by Act No. 13873, Jan. 13, 2013>

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 13, 2013, Plaintiff A expected to be gambling railed in the ambling bridge located in Ansan-si, Annyang-si, Annyang-si, and suffered bodily injury, such as the closed ebrate of the vertebrate, etc.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

Plaintiff

B and C are the parents of the plaintiff A, and the defendant is the local government in charge of the management of Park Jong-dae.

【Ground for recognition】 There is no dispute

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The defect in the construction or management of a public structure under Article 5 (1) of the State Compensation Act refers to the defect in the construction or management of the public structure is in the state of not having safety ordinarily required for its use. However, if the public structure is not in a state of completeness and is not in a state of its function, the defect in the construction or management of the public structure can not be deemed to be a defect in the construction or management of the public structure. In determining whether the construction or management of the public structure has fulfilled its duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the danger of the public structure, taking into account all the circumstances such as the use of the public structure in question, the present state of the construction site, and the situation of its use, etc., in order to determine whether the construction or management of the public structure has fulfilled its duty to take protective measures to the extent that is objectively and objectively required in proportion to the risk of the public structure. In other words, if it is proved that the defect in construction or management of the public structure is under such situation.

B. (See Supreme Court Decision 2000Da56822 delivered on July 27, 2001).

Considering the following points that are acknowledged as a whole in light of Gap evidence Nos. 4, 7, 8, and Eul evidence Nos. 2 and Eul evidence Nos. 4, 7, 8, and Eul evidence No. 2’s overall purport of pleading, the Hembal Hand rail at the time of the instant accident.