2. White00

Plaintiff 1 and 2’s address Seoul

Plaintiff 2’s legal representative’s mother of parental authority

3. Maximum○○.

Kim Jong-si:

[Judgment of the court below]

Gyeongbuk-gu District;

Representative Domb○ ○

Attorney Kim Shin-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 3/5 of the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs, and the remainder is assessed against the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

from April 26, 2009 to service date of a copy of the complaint of this case with respect to 5,000,000 won and each of the above amounts.

Until the date of full payment, 5% per annum, 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

(D) each payment.

A. On April 26, 2009: Around 06, 2009, Woo○○ (hereinafter referred to as “the Deceased”) was found to be a dead body around 40: around 28th of the same month on the 28th day of the same month, when he was engaged in fishing on the tideland, which was cut down on the ground that he was cut down on the tideland and went missing on the tideland, while he was engaged in fishing on the tideland under the tideland of the west-gun, Young-gu, Chungcheongnam-gun, Gyeong-gun (hereinafter referred to as “the tideland of this case”).

B. The tideland of this case is a place corresponding to the public waters under the Defendant’s management pursuant to Article 4 of the Public Waters Management Act, which is a fluort 14 meters wide and approximately 6.2 meters long long long from which the spherb may fish. The floor of the tideland of this case is natural spherbing and walking at the corner, and the surface of the spherbing is in the form of a backing the sea. In order to move on the above spherb, the spherb must use the access road to begin from the coast be located on the spherb of the road, and the slope is considerably spreading.

C. Although the tideland of this case had been used as a fishing place for the past time, the entry of fishermen was not smooth due to the fact that the slope of the access road was spreading. The Defendant, around the beginning of 2003, constructed the access road on the four tidelands located near the coast, including the tideland of this case. After doing so, the Defendant publicizedd each of the above tidelands fishing places by stating that the entry was difficult for the convenience of fishermen in the field of experience tourism on the Defendant’s homepage. The risk zone (Yuk-gun-gun, Young-gun, the area adjacent to the territorial sea, the area of the livestock industry) was established, and the construction of the sea fishing place on the tidelands of the tidelands of the sea area was implemented on January 10, 203, and by inserting the surrounding wind photographs, announced each of the above tidelands fishing places by inserting them.

D. At the time of the instant accident, there was no separate installation such as a blockingr to restrict people’s access to the access to the access road in the stairs form leading to the tideland at the time of the instant accident. However, at the entrance of the said access road, the said access road, “this facility is a facility to provide convenience to people by finding our Gun, and is established the order of oiling in compliance with the following provisions. On safety accidents, safety equipment such as fishing (the prohibition of fishing after drinking) under the due diligence, the name of the Gu, tideland, and tideland, which are equipped with the safety equipment such as fishing in fishing, and the accidents that occur during fishing, are known to the principal.

E. At the time of the instant accident, the wind wave of the 3m or 4m forecast announced by the Korea Meteorological Administration was in effect, and approximately 3.5m wave was actually in effect.

F. The Plaintiff New ○○ is the deceased’s wife, and the Plaintiff 00 is the deceased’s children, and the Plaintiff ○○ is the mother of the deceased.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Gap evidence 7-1 through 7, Gap evidence 13-1 through 30, Gap evidence 16, Gap evidence 20-1 and 20-2, Gap evidence 22-1 through 3, Gap evidence 22-1 through 3, Gap evidence 22-1 through 3, the witness Na○○'s testimony, the result of this court's inspection, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The plaintiffs' assertion (1)

The tideland of this case is a public water area managed by the head of the Si/Gun and has been managed until now by the Defendant to create an access road to that area. However, despite the frequent access of the persons intending to carry out the above tidelands, safety facilities such as a railing, etc. should have been installed, or at least a life-saving equipment should have been installed so as to prevent the accident since the high level of a fall accident is likely to occur due to lack of safety facilities. In particular, if the tidelands came into force as of the date of the accident in this case, such as the date of the accident in this case, the Defendant did not take such measures as above, and thus, there was a defect in the construction and management of the above tidelands in the construction and management of public facilities. Accordingly, as the managing body of the tideland of this case, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Deceased and the Plaintiffs for damages caused by the accident in this case due to the defect in the construction and management of the above tidelands.

(2) The defendant's assertion

The tideland of this case is merely a natural object and cannot be deemed a public structure. The defendant only installed the entry stairs leading to the above tideland, not a management entity of the above tideland fishing place. Therefore, the accident of this case was caused by the deceased's negligence, and there is no responsibility for the defendant.

B. Determination

(1) The legal nature and management authority of the tideland of this case (a) refers to fluids or physical facilities granted by the State or a local government for a specific public purpose, and the term "property granted for a specific public purpose" includes not only the property provided directly for the free use of the general public, but also the property provided for the use by the State or a local government, including the property provided for the use by the administrative body, but also the property managed by the State or a local government pursuant to ownership, right of lease and other rights (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da45302 delivered on Jan. 24, 1995, etc.).

(B) In full view of the following circumstances as to the instant case, i.e., the public waters under the management of Defendant Gun, i.e., the instant tidelands: (a) the Defendant installed an access road in the form of stairs leading to the instant tidelands, and advertised the said tidelands as a fishing place through the website; (b) the Defendant installed a signboard indicating that the above tidelands are the fishing place at the entrance of the above tidelands; and (c) the Defendant has been used as a fishing place prior to the instant tidelands; and (d) the Defendant installed a access road in around 2003 after the passage, and the passage of fishermen has been more frequent. Even if the Defendant did not install convenience facilities for fishing on the instant tidelands or operate the above tidelands as a fee-charging fishing place, the instant tideland constitutes a natural water directly provided by the Defendant for the free use of the general public, and the Defendant constitutes a public fishing place under the State Compensation Act.

(2) In light of the above circumstances, if the defendant was unable to take measures to prevent the above-mentioned weather accident from being installed at the time of the above-mentioned tidelands, the defendant's construction or management of the above tidelands cannot be said to have any defect in the construction or management of the above tidelands to the extent that it is difficult for the government or the local government to take measures to prevent the above-mentioned tidelands from being installed at the time of their entry into and departure from the 1stm of the above tidelands. However, the defendant's construction or management of the above tidelands cannot be said to have any defect in the construction or management of the above tidelands because the 5m of the above tidelands were not installed at the time of their entry into and departure from the 1st of the above tidelands, and there is no danger that the 6m of the above tidelands might have been installed at least on the 3m of the above tidelands, such as the construction or installation of the 1st of the tidelands.

(3) Limitation of liability

However, as acknowledged earlier, at the time of the accident, the Spacian was in effect at the sea around the tideland of this case, and approximately 3.5m wave was actually sold and approximately 3.5m wave was stated to the effect that the safety accident should be taken place at the entrance of the tideland of this case. Thus, the deceased was negligent by entering the tideland of this case, even though he could have been aware that he was at the time of the accident that he was at the time of the accident that he was at the time of the accident that he was at the time of the accident that he was at the right time, and that he was at the right time at the time of the accident that he was at the right time, and that such negligence was the cause of the occurrence and expansion of damage caused by the accident of this case, so it is reasonable to consider in calculating the amount of damage to be compensated by the defendant, but its ratio is limited to 30% remaining after the defendant's liability ratio is limited.

3. Scope of damages.

(a) Actual income:

The loss of lost income equivalent to the monetary total assessment value of the operating capacity lost by the Deceased due to the instant accident is 304,252,950 won calculated at the present price at the time of the instant accident in accordance with the Hofmanial Calculation Act, which deducts intermediate interest at the rate of 5/12 per month as follows, based on the facts and the assessment details as follows: (1) the facts of recognition and assessment are as follows.

(1) Personal information

Gender: Date of birth of male: February 26, 1967

Age: 42 years of age and 2 months at the time of the instant accident

Name for a term of lease: 35.72 years

(2) Occupation and income: Average monthly income 2,987, 666 as a member of the sales of daily necessities. (3) The maximum working age shall be 60 years until the age of 60 ( February 25, 2027) (4) 1/3 of the living cost.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, 8, Gap evidence 9-1 through 23, Gap evidence 11, Gap evidence 12-1, Gap evidence 12-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings (2), calculation 2, 987, and 666 won x 2/3 x 7545 (214 months) x 304, 252, 950 won (beer; hereinafter the same shall apply)

(b) Funeral expenses.

The expenditure of KRW 3,00,000 by Plaintiff New ○○ (the empirical rule)

C. Limit of liability (1) The defendant's ratio of liability 30% [refer to paragraph (2) of the above 3. b. 3. b. 2] (refer to paragraph (2)] (A): 304, 252, 950 won x 0.3 = 91, 275, 885 won (b) funeral expenses: 3,000,000 x 0.3 = 900,000 won

(d) The reasons for consolation money (1).

In light of the background and result of the instant accident, the deceased’s age, gender, family relation (the relationship with the plaintiffs), and all other circumstances shown in the argument in the instant case (2) (a) the deceased: 8,00,000 won (b) the Plaintiff’s New○○, 000 won: Plaintiff 4,000,000 won (C) each, 2,000,000 won (2,00,000 won)

E. Inheritance relation (1) Plaintiff New ○○○, the spouse of the deceased, was 3/5, and Plaintiff 2/5 inheritance (2) inheritance amount (A), 59, 565, and 531 won (the sum of the deceased’s lost income of KRW 91,275,85, and KRW 8,000, and KRW 99,275,3/5) (b) Plaintiff 00: 39,710, 354 won (the sum of the deceased’s lost income of KRW 91,275, and KRW 8,000 and KRW 8,000,000, KRW 91,275, 885, and KRW 8,000)

F. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant has the duty to pay 64, 465, 531 won to the plaintiff new ○○○ ( = inheritance amount of KRW 59,565,531 + Funeral expenses of KRW 1900,00 + funeral expenses of KRW 4,00,000 + solatium amount of KRW 43,710,354 ( = inheritance amount of KRW 39,710,354 + solatium amount of KRW 4,000 + KRW 4,000,000), the maximum amount of KRW 2,00,000,000, and each of the above amounts from April 26, 2009, which is the date of the accident of this case to the day of complete payment, 20% of the annual damages from the day following the day of each lawsuit prescribed by the Civil Act to April 16, 2010.

4. Conclusion

Thus, each of the claims of the plaintiffs in this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and each of the claims is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Doroe

Judges Han branch-type