Mayang-si

Representative of the Market Oralism

Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant

2. Seocho-gu;

Representative of the Gu;

Attorney Shin-ro, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

A. Of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Defendants, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for compensation of KRW 1,210,170 equivalent to the costs of physical appraisal is dismissed.

B. The defendants shall pay to each plaintiff 5,810, 593 won with 5% per annum from July 16, 2001 to May 17, 2007; 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment; 3,000 won per annum from July 16, 2001 to August 16, 2006 to the day of full payment; and 5% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment; and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

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

2. 3/4 of the total litigation costs is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendants, respectively.

3. The portion for which no provisional execution has been declared by the first instance court from among the provisions of subparagraph 1 (b) may be provisionally executed.

Purport of claim, purport of appeal and incidental appeal

1. Purport of claim

The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 97, 195, 810 won with an amount of 5% per annum from July 16, 2001 to the delivery date of a copy of a complaint, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment (the Plaintiff shall be entitled to 71, 638, 401 won from the first instance court to May 4, 2005; 14, 14, 776, 834 won from the date of August 1, 201 to the date of complete payment; 30, 305 won from the date of complete payment to the date of complete payment; 20, 30, 305 won from the date of complete payment to the date of complete payment; 30, 40, 305 won from the date of full payment to the date of complete payment; 30,51, 40, 205, 200 won from the original judgment to the date of full payment.

31. The claim of KRW 31,973,019 ( KRW 103, 611, 420 - KRW 71, 638, 401) was expanded, with respect to the part of the claim for the treatment cost until April 22, 2005, the amount of the treatment cost was reduced to KRW 4,363,380 until April 22, 2005. On the other hand, the claim of KRW 153,370 ( KRW 4,516, 750 - KRW 4,363,380) was extended since September 13, 206.

2. Purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff falling under the order to pay below shall be revoked.

The Defendants shall pay to each Plaintiff 62,069, 421 won with 5% interest per annum from July 16, 2001 to the service date of a duplicate of complaint, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment (the Plaintiff’s claim was reduced to the extent of the purport of appeal by reducing the purport of the claim as above).

3. Purport of incidental appeal;

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendants shall be revoked, and all of the plaintiff's claims against the defendants falling under the above revocation part shall be dismissed

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 was coming from the front of the promotion apartment zone located in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul at the time (from the 14th of the same month to the 15th of the same month, 327mm in total, and 01:0:0 on the 15th of the same month to the 06th of the same month, hereinafter referred to as the “road, etc.” in this case) on the front of the promotion apartment, which was flooded from the sidewalk base to the 130-meter high from the sidewalk base to the 0th of the same month.

Due to the leakage of power plant accident, he suffered from an injury of the scarcitys, etc. in the left (hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case").

B. The Seocho-ro, where the street of this case is located (hereinafter referred to as the "road of this case"), is the Special Metropolitan City (City/Do) owned by Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City"), the width of which is not less than 20 meters. The defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City delegated the maintenance and management of the street of this case and electric power facilities of this case, which are accessories to the road of this case, to the head of Seocho-gu, who is the head of the competent Gu, pursuant to Articles 5 and 16 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Management of Road Facilities (Seoul Municipal Ordinance No. 3760), and accordingly, the defendant 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, etc. of this case, which was installed at a place less than 50 meters away from its location, and all of them were connected to the part of the input and output connections of the electric wire of this case, which was under contact with the road of this case.

(B) At the time of installation, the stabilization machine of the street lamps of this case, established in the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy at the time of installation of the street lamps "(c) installed on the street of this case 60cm above the ground in accordance with the Korean Industrial Safety Standards, but thereafter, the floor height was installed on the ground at the time of the accident, so it was easily flooded, and it was not possible to effectively cut off all, and prevent a shock accident. At the time of the accident, at the time of the accident, at the time of the accident, 00, red0, 00 were killed due to the electric shock of the street of this case at the location of the accident at the time of the accident, and (d) the Corporation did not take safety inspection of the street of this case three times from 197 to 201, and notified the Defendant Seocho-gu of the reason that the street of this case was inappropriate, and it did not take any fundamental measures such as the extension of the street of this case 9% or more of the site at the time of the accident.

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] Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Gap evidence Nos. 15-7 through 11, and the result of the on-site inspection by the court of first instance, and the result of the commission of physical examination by the head of an affiliated hospital of the Gyeonghee University, 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 of this case was in the state of leakage, and the stability machine installed on the street of this case was exposed to the body of the electric wires in part of the connecting part of the input and output electric wires, and it was installed at a level lower than the standard and could not function as a stable wind for easy flooding. The outer part of the street of this case was at risk of shocking electric power over the ground because the outer part of the street of this case was not connected with the protection, and it was at a level of 130cm high from the surface of the ground due to concentrated rain, and the road of this case did not take safety measures such as blocking the road, etc. even if there was a high risk of a shock accident, and it was caused by the defect of the safety of the street of this case, etc. of this case and the management defect of the street of this case, 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 agency delegation. In the case of agency delegation, the agency entrusted with the authority is managed in the position of the administrative agency under the jurisdiction of the local government under the jurisdiction of the local government to which the agency entrusted the authority belongs. Thus, in the case of damage to others due to the defect of the public agency constructed and managed by the delegated affairs, the local government to which the agency entrusted the authority 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 under Article 5 of the State Compensation Act (2).

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 sidewalk base, and at the time, there was a danger that the road in this case would walk and pass through because the person was a new wall, so it was dangerous for him to take safety measures, such as bypassing, etc., but was erroneous in passing the road in this case and caused the accident in this case. The plaintiff's above error contributed to the occurrence and expansion of the accident in this case. Therefore, it is reasonable to consider the amount of damages to be compensated by the defendants in calculating the amount of damages to be compensated by about 15% in consideration of the overall circumstances. Thus, the defendants' responsibility is limited to the remaining 85% in addition to the above error 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: Occupation and income remaining (b) 49 years and 6 months;

At the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff was serving as a taxi driver belonging to the Gyeongan Transportation Company. At that time, the Plaintiff’s average wage was KRW 52,329 per day, while the Plaintiff’s retirement age under the collective agreement for the Gyeongan Transportation Co., Ltd. reaches 58 years of age. As such, after the date of the instant accident, the Plaintiff sought as the date of the instant accident.

8. From January to March 31, 2007, the Plaintiff’s monthly income shall be deemed to be KRW 1,591,673 per month for which the Plaintiff seeks among KRW 1,591,673 per month ( = 52,329 won x 12 months per 365 days x less than KRW 12 won hereinafter the same shall apply) calculated on the basis of the above average wage. It is reasonable to view it to be KRW 569,870 per month.

C) Period of hospitalized treatment: Ex post facto disability and labor ability loss rate 1) from August 1, 2001 to November 27, 2001

The plaintiff suffered from the disturbance of the overdraft (defluence of the anti-defluence) due to the accident in this case, and when applying the items of the trial disorder in the list of the assessment of the Mabro’s disability, the plaintiff is deemed to have lost the ability to work permanently by 4%.

2) Ratio of loss of labor capacity

From Aug. 1, 2001 to Nov. 27, 2001, a hospitalization period: 100% from Nov. 28, 2001 to Mar. 31, 2007, the plaintiff sought from Nov. 28, 2001: 4%3) The judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case occurred from the 100-% labor capability of 100% from November 28, 2001 to March 31, 2007, under the premise that the plaintiff suffered from the harm to the legacy after the electrical damage, damage to water, but it is not sufficient to recognize that the plaintiff suffered from the harm to the legacy after the electrical damage and the 10-% labor capability of 10% from November 28, 200 to March 31, 207, the evidence No. 13-2, No. 14-9 through 11, No. 16, and 17 and the physical entrustment of part to the head of Sinhee University University and its affiliated hospital by the court of first instance on the basis of the result of the physical entrustment of the head of Sinhee University and its affiliated hospital by the court of first instance. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion in excess of the above scope of recognition is not acceptable.

(2) loss for lost income during the period of suspension; and

According to the result of fact-finding conducted by the court of first instance on the Seoul Vice-Governor of the Seoul Labor Welfare Corporation, the plaintiff can be found to have received KRW 45,751,720 as temporary layoff benefits from August 1, 2001 to December 31, 2004. The plaintiff's actual income during the above period is the total of KRW 8,338,527 ( KRW 6,214,801 + KRW 2,123,726) as shown in the following table.

From January 1, 2005 to March 31, 2007, the actual income of the Plaintiff is KRW 1,380,317 as listed below.

B. The Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 1,210,170, which the first instance court entrusted the Plaintiff’s physical examination of the Plaintiff as part of the treatment cost, as the Plaintiff requested to pay KRW 3,306,580,00 for the physical examination of the Plaintiff’s hospital affiliated with the university of Gyeonghee University, which was the part of the treatment cost. Thus, the amount that the victim received the physical examination of the Plaintiff according to the court’s order for the appraisal and paid for all the examination expenses for the said physical examination without following the prepayment procedure is included in the appraisal cost, and thus, the amount paid as the cost of the lawsuit falls under the cost of the lawsuit, and can be repaid through the final procedure for the costs of lawsuit, and thus there is no benefit to seek a separate lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da68577, May 12, 200). Therefore, the lawsuit seeking the payment of the cost of the physical examination corresponding to the litigation cost is unlawful.

(c) Expenses for future treatment;

Although the Plaintiff sought reimbursement of KRW 20,00,000 for future treatment costs, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is not acceptable, since there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise, there is no other evidence to acknowledge this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the need for future treatment in addition to the previous treatment as seen earlier, as well as the previous treatment.

(d) Loss from lost income during the period of suspension of business under offset against negligence (1) x 0.85 x 0.85 x 1,380,317 x 0.85 x 0.85 x 0.85 x 1,380,317 x 0.85 x 1,173,269 x 3,306 x 580 x 85 x 85 - 2,810,593 ;

D. Mutual aid (1) The Plaintiff was already paid temporary disability compensation benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, 45, 751, 720, disability lump-sum disability payment, 5, 180, and 640 won. From KRW 7,087, 747, the above temporary disability compensation benefits amounting to KRW 45,751,720, and from KRW 1,173,269, a lump-sum disability compensation amounting to KRW 5,180, and 640, respectively, the damage from the actual income that the Defendants are liable to compensate for to the Plaintiff is no longer.

(2) The Plaintiff received KRW 14,510,920 from the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service for medical expenses and medical care expenses, but the said recognition appears to be for the remaining principal’s charges, excluding the amount of medical care, and thus, the medical care expenses shall not be deducted separately.

(e) The reasons for consolation money (1) : The Plaintiff’s age and occupation, the course and consequence of the instant accident, the contents and degree of legacy, the period and progress of hospitalization, the degree of negligence of the Defendants, and other circumstances shown in the pleadings (2) : 3,00,000 won; and

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence 12-1 to 6, Gap evidence 13-1, the result of physical examination of the director of the hospital affiliated with the Ghee University at the court of first instance, the result of fact inquiry about the director of the Seoul Southern Vice-Governor of the Seoul Labor Welfare Corporation, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for compensation of KRW 1,210,170, which is equivalent to the costs of physical appraisal against the Defendants is unlawful. The Defendants are dismissed. The Defendants totaled KRW 5,810,593 won ( KRW 2,810,593 won + KRW 3,000,000), and property damages among them, KRW 2,810,593, from July 16, 2001 to May 17, 2007, for which the Defendants raised a dispute over the existence or scope of the obligation to perform, the Defendants’ claim for compensation of KRW 3,00,000, and KRW 170 from July 16, 2001 to the above judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendants’ claim for compensation of KRW 5,810,000,000 with the exception of the above portion of the Defendants’ claim for compensation of KRW 2,816,000 per annum, respectively.

Judges Park Jong-sung

Support before judges