[2] The case holding that in a case where a driver, etc. was isolated from an expressway for a long time due to snow, since it seems sufficiently possible for the Korea Highway Corporation at the time to avoid traffic condition in each isolated section or to reduce the duration of the isolation, it cannot be said that it constitutes a natural disaster which could not be predicted at all, or force majeure that could not be avoided, since it could be sufficiently possible for the Korea Highway Corporation to avoid traffic condition in each isolated section or to reduce the duration of the isolation.

[2] In a case where a driver, etc. was isolated from an expressway for a long time due to snow, the case holding that although the maximum amount of heavy snowfall in 100 years, it is deemed that the Korea Highway Corporation at the time was able to avoid traffic congestion in each isolated section or to reduce the number of hours of isolation at least because it was sufficiently possible for the Korea Expressway Corporation to take appropriate measures by predicting the traffic wells in each isolated section in advance, and thus, it cannot be deemed that it constitutes a natural disaster or force majeure that cannot be predicted at all.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are all dismissed.

3. 3/4 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiffs, and 1/4 by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or are recognized by Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 233 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including paper numbers) and this court's loyalty-do, the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, the National Emergency Management and Transportation, the Disaster Prevention Agency, and the Board of Audit and Inspection based on the whole purport of the arguments.

A. Status of the parties

The defendant, upon delegation by the Republic of Korea, is performing duties such as the execution, management, etc. of construction works for new construction, reconstruction, maintenance, and repair of an expressway. Within the scope of acting on behalf of the Minister of Construction and Transportation with respect to the expressway, the defendant occupies and manages each expressway, such as light, middle, and south, etc., and the plaintiffs are the users of the above expressway, middle, and south during the period from March 5, 2004 to March 6, 2004.

(b) Meteorological conditions in the region of Chungcheongbuk-do;

Around 15:00 on March 4, 2004, the Korea Meteorological Administration issued a preliminary severe weather alert (pre-announcement of the information on the issuance of the special weather alert when it is anticipated to announce the special weather alert) in advance at around the following time: (a) around 15:00; (b) around 04:0 on March 5, 200; (c) around 09:00, at around 3:5:00, at around 5:3:00, at around 3:5:00, at a large warning of 5:30cm of the total estimated snow volume; and (d) around 17:0 on May 5, 200, at around 17:0, the said large-scale warning and the large-scale warning.

On March 5, 2004, in the vicinity of the Southern Highway, snow 49cm during that day, unlike the announcement of the Korea Meteorological Administration, began from March 5, 2004, and in detail, from March 5, 2004 to 03:00, the accumulated new snow 8.2cm from March 5, 200 to 06:00, the accumulated new snow 19cm from 0.2cm, 12:00 to 12:00, the accumulated new snow 34.5cm, 15:00 to 48cm, and 18:00 to the accumulated new snow 49cm.

Before that, the maximum size of March in the Daejeon District was 14.9cm around March 4, 1969 and 13.7cm around March 1, 1984.

(c) Vehicles regularly located near an expressway and countermeasures taken by the defendant;

(1) The defendant's disaster prevention work regulations

(A) Around December 2003, pursuant to the provisions of Article 18(1) of the Countermeasures against Natural Disasters Act, the Defendant established a “204 disaster prevention implementation plan” as follows. A regional headquarters under the Defendant’s jurisdiction was composed of six middle, senior, senior, Chungcheong, Chungcheong, South, North Korea, and South Korea.

Article 1 (Disaster Rating Mark)

When a large-scale warning is issued to at least 3 3 cm in the 11st metropolitan area, such as the table in the main sentence, and at least 3 cm in the 11st metropolitan area, and at least 3 cm in the 10th metropolitan area, the traffic break-out occurs due to a large-scale warning of at least 10 cm in the 10th metropolitan area, and at least 4 cm in the 4th metropolitan area when a large-scale warning is issued to at least 3 cm in the 2nd metropolitan area when a large-scale warning is issued to at least 10 cm in the 3rd metropolitan area when a large-scale warning is issued to at least 3 cm in the 3rd metropolitan area in the 3rd metropolitan area when a large-scale warning is anticipated to be issued to at least 10 cm in the 4th metropolitan metropolitan area, when a large-scale warning is expected to be issued to be issued for less

Article 2 (Measures Plans by Disaster Situation)

2. Installation of a guidance sign at the place of business; 3. Installation of a guidance sign at the place of business; 1. When the visibility is less than 100 cm due to the 2-stage snow snow, inside, etc. or when the surface ices down, 50% speed of the ordinary road operation; 3. Installation of a guidance sign at the place of business; 3. When the visibility is not possible due to other public relations activities 10cm or more in size; 2. When the traffic restriction and suspension of operation and consultation between the head of the district headquarters and the head of the regional headquarters on February 2, 2007, the head of the regional headquarters of the regional headquarters of the traffic information broadcasting station and the head of the regional headquarters of the regional headquarters of the traffic information broadcasting station.

(B) Around September 1, 2003, the Defendant enacted a traffic information center operation standards with the following contents.

Article 11 (Report on Situation) (1) In the event of a special situation, the head of the team shall report without delay at intervals of one hour in a certain form through the reporting system, including the following matters, by not later than the end of the situation: Provided, That the weather change shall be reported by the competent department to the competent department of the head office and the traffic information center by

(2) The employees working at the center, along with the occurrence of special matters, may request the relevant regional headquarters and branch offices to take appropriate measures, and shall manage the situation thereof.

Article 19 (Change of Weather Conditions) The head of the team in the event of the occurrence of a traffic destination or well-being due to a change in weather conditions shall report the following matters in accordance with the reporting system:

(C) On August 28, 2003, the Defendant enacted standards for the management of expressway traffic as follows.

Where the head of the department in charge and the head of the enforcement department intend to restrict or prohibit the traffic of vehicles at once due to the following grounds, he/she shall consult with the expressway patrol team and immediately report the results thereof to the head of the general affairs department, as prescribed by the relevant statutes:

1. Damage to roads;

2. Occurrence of a serious traffic accident;

3. Occurrence of traffic trouble, such as heavy rain, heavy snow, snow, ice, and inside the area where the area is restricted;

4. The traffic congestion caused by an exceptional increase in traffic volume; and

5. Where traffic control is inevitable to prevent any danger and manage roads.

(2) Defendant’s response following the preliminary severe weather alerts issued by the Korea Meteorological Administration

Upon the issuance of a preliminary severe weather alert, the Central Disaster Countermeasures Headquarters around 0: 0:30 on March 4, 2004; and around 18:30 on March 4, 2004, the Ministry of Construction and Transportation issued a preliminary severe weather alert to the Defendant in Seoul, Gyeonggi, and Chungcheong area. Accordingly, the Defendant issued an instruction to post snow removal equipment and human resources in advance and work at the vulnerable area of traffic flow so that snow removal can be carried out immediately. The Defendant determined that the above weather situation falls under class 3 of the disaster rating table, and issued an order to strengthen snow removal work and work at the former headquarters during 0: 0: 0: 0: 4.0 : 0 : 0 : 4. 0 : 0 : 5 : 00 : 5 : 5 : 105. 105. 6 : 00 : 4. 5 0 : 00 0. 5 : 00 0. 5 : 0. 1. 0. 0. . 0. . 0. 0. . .

(c) The status of South and North roads;

South and North Korea are located between 300.830km from the Busan flag point to 29.650km, and the total length is 1.18km from 30.80km to 300.390km (440km), 5.43% + 300.390km to 29.96km (424m), -1.54% (in the case of an expressway), 29.96km to 29.650km (316m), -5% (in the case of an expressway), -5% of the Rules on the Structure and Facility Standards of the Highway (Ordinance No. 206, Aug. 9, 199), -5% of the total width is below 10%, 10% of the surface value of the expressway, and 10% of the surrounding area, 3% of the surface value of the expressway plus below 10.5% of the surface value of the expressway.

(iv) the circumstances of the isolation of the remaining and nearby vehicles and the response of the defendant;

In the case of the traffic along the Gyeong Highway, the gradient has reached 5.5% higher than the 3% gradient standard for the new expressway. As such, the snow has commenced on March 5, 2004, and the large-scale cargo vehicles have been dissatisfyed and unsatched more than the other on March 5, 2004. As large-scale vehicles have entered the expressway, there has been a ever been a situation that ever has been ever occurred, and the removal of the snow could no longer be performed because the snow of the Defendant was isolated near the above.

On March 5, 2004, the body of the vehicles south and near the opening began from around 07:0 on March 5, 2004, approximately 300 vehicles and approximately 597 passengers were isolated from the static section of about 300 km, and the additional vehicle for entering the expressway was increased due to the increase of the body. The defendant Chungcheong District Headquarters confirmed on March 5, 2004 that the traffic movement begins through CCTV, such as around 07:0 on March 5, 2004, the vehicle lying down around the opening, and the vehicle lying down in the vicinity of the opening. In addition, around 09:20 on March 5, 200, it was confirmed that the snow volume in the vicinity of the road became 19 km, and that the traffic movement size of the above near the road has been increased from around 16 km on March 10, 204 to around 14:5, 2004.

On March 5, 2004, the Defendant Road Headquarters received the above report from the Chungcheong Regional Headquarters, and judged that it is possible to communicate when the snow removal work in the vicinity of the building is completed, and did not issue a particular traffic control instruction to the Chungcheong Regional Headquarters. On March 5, 2004, the Defendant Road Headquarters recognized the seriousness of the situation and issued a traffic control instruction to the Chungcheong Regional Headquarters, but did not report the seriousness of the situation to the Ministry of Construction and Transportation and the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs.

On the other hand, at around 10:35 on March 5, 2004, the Dongnam Provincial Police Agency No. 2 district unit (hereinafter “Yannam National Police Agency No. 2 district unit”) made a telephone conversation to discuss the opening of the central separation zone and the blocking of Tolvis in the situation room around 10:35, the defendant Chungcheong Regional Headquarters, but the above situation room demanded the defendant's head office to ask the information center of the defendant's head office for the extension of the central separation zone and the blocking of Tolvis. Accordingly, around 1:00 on March 5, 200, the police notified the information center that it would cooperate in the controlled part at the police. However, the information center notified the defendant's head office and the Ministry of Construction and Transportation and the Ministry of Construction and Transportation that it could not respond to the above issues.

On March 5, 2004, the chief of the Defendant Chungcheong Regional Headquarters received traffic control instructions from the Defendant Road Headquarters, and around 13:0 on March 5, 2004, notified the second district unit of the Chungcheongnamnam National Police Agency that “in the case of a subordinate line, it is not yet confirmed as one of the measures to bypass the entering vehicles in the vicinity of the YYA, and in the case of a superior line, in the case of a straight line, it is not yet confirmed as one of the measures to bypass the entering vehicles in the vicinity of the YA.” On March 13:30, 204, the chief of the Defendant Chungcheong Regional Headquarters notified the second district unit of the Chungcheong National Police Agency of the final notification on the blocking of the Tool, etc.

On the other hand, at around 14:00 on March 5, 2004, the Defendant decided to control the traffic as above, it had already been left from the vicinity of the Donan ICT near the Donan Highway, and there had been approximately 6,350 vehicles and approximately 12,637 passengers in the front section of the Donan Highway (Servi Service, rest area; hereinafter the same shall apply) around the Donan Highway, and there had been around 58 km in the front section of the Hanan Highway (hereinafter the “the first height section”).

(5) The developments leading up to the control of Tol, the removal of the central separation zone, and the removal of the first separation section of this case

0. On March 5, 2004, 14: 0: 0: 0 : 0,000, 20 : 3: 0: 0,000 : 4: 0,000, 3: 0,000 : 3: 0,000 : 0,000 : 4: 0,000 : 0,000 : 3: 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000: 4: 0: 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000: 1: 3:0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00.

On March 5, 2004, the Defendant decided to remove the central separation zone set up in the first height of the instant case; from around 203:30 to around 11:00, on the 25th parallel (hereinafter referred to as the “Seoul”) around the south (301km; hereinafter the same shall apply); around the 297km near the 2nd parallel (2: 30km near the 20th parallel (2: 3.6km near the 3rd parallel); from around 30,000 (2.6km near the 3rd parallel); from around the 26th parallel (2.3km near the 3rd parallel); from around the 26th parallel (2.3km near the 3rd parallel); from around the 206th parallel (3.6 km near the 3rd parallel); from around 3,000 (326.8 km near the 3.3rd parallel (23.36 km near the 3.3rd parallel); and from around the 23.4 km.3.0 km.

However, even though each access road as above was obstructed and part of the central separation zone was moved to the opposite lane, 8,81 vehicles from March 5, 2004 to March 18, 2004 entered the expressway through the said 9 business offices. During that 14:0 to March 5, 2004, the physical phenomenon of the first height of the vehicle in the front section of this case was further deepened from the wind where the her relatives stopped or left the vehicle on the side of the expressway, and around 6:00 to the south of about 35 kilometers, the 1:00 km from around 0:0 to the south of about 35 kilometers, the 1:00 km from around 1:0 to the south of the 1:0 km of the upper parallel, the 1:00 km from around 24:0 to 1:0 km of the upper parallel to the south of the road, and the 1:00 km from around 1:06 km to the south of the road.

Meanwhile, from March 16:00 to March 5, 2004, the Defendant provided 5,273 relief human resources from related agencies, such as the Korean National Red Cross, to the drivers and passengers isolated on the expressway, and provided snow removal work at the same time. However, the snow removal work was delayed on the wind that the vehicles left in the first height section of this case could not enter the expressway, and the towing work for the above vehicles was not soon conducted. As such, on the following day, from March 6, 2004 to March 30, 2004, the isolated phenomenon on the section between the area near the middle-west Highway and the south of about 27 km, around March 6, 2004, around 18:00, around 200, up to 10:3:00 km of the area near the Southern Highway from March 6, 2004 to about 26:3:0 km of the area adjacent to the Highway.

On the other hand, Defendant Chungcheong Regional Headquarters at around 15:30 on March 5, 2004: the new volume of Daejeon region at around 15:30 on the 49§¯ and the snow removal vehicle could not enter an expressway. Thus, on March 5, 2004, it is practically impossible to resume traffic flow for the first high section. However, on March 5, 200, the Defendant president deemed that the above section would be completely transmitted at around 18:0 on March 5, 2004; the Defendant president believed that it will be completely transmitted at around 0: 0: 0 on March 5, 2004, around 19:00 on March 5, 2004; 2:0 on the basis of this, the Minister of Construction and Transportation announced at around 20:3:0 on March 5, 2004; 2:3:0 on March 5, 2004, 2004; 3:4:04 on the basis of this, as above.

(6) The defendant's information broadcasting circumstances

Around 07:08 on March 5, 2004, the Defendant broadcasted “in the course of delay due to a heavy snow in the Chungcheong zone and a rail in the vicinity of the rooftop Highway.” On several occasions, from around 09:15 on March 5, 2004 to around 13:54, a serious static phenomenon occurs due to a heavy snow in the Chungcheong zone. Thus, the Daegu and Busan direction is the Central Highway; the south direction is to bypass the road; the vehicle’s end on March 5, 2004; the vehicle’s end on March 14: 10, 2004; the vehicle’s end on March 5, 2004, from around 3:00 to around 4:5:0, the vehicle’s end at the end on the road, the entrance of which is controlled; the vehicle’s end on the road’s end on the road’s end on the road’s end on the road’s end on the road’s end on the road’s end on the road’s end on the road’s end.

(7) The physical phenomenon in the vicinity of the Gyeongdo Highway, the pentcheon and the Yellow Sea.

On the other hand, at around 05:00 on March 5, 2004, one set of large truck and one set of truck had a chain of collisions, such as securing safety distance, etc. around the roof of the Seoul Highway (262.5 km at the point of origin). At around 05:20 on the same day, the two district unit of the Chungcheongnamnam National Police Agency and the defendant arrived at the accident site, and completely block the passage of roads around the Seoul and Busan direction and completed the accident management. At around 06:50, two lanes in Busan direction and two lanes in the Seoul direction were transmitted around 09:0,00, and around 10:20, it was difficult for the vehicle to stop the traffic of the point of the accident in order to manage the above accident, but it was difficult for the vehicle to take care of the accident in the vicinity of the accident at the place of the accident.

Accordingly, around 07:00 on March 5, 2004, about 10 km in both direction from the vicinity of the Geum River to the Macheon; around 10 km in the direction of Busan; around 10:14 on the same day, around 23 km in the vicinity of the Yancheon to the Yancheon; around 10 km in the vicinity of the Yancheon river; around 31 km in the vicinity of the Yancheon river to the Yancheon; around 12:14 on the same day, around 31 km in the vicinity of the Yancheon river to the Yancheon; and around 43 km in the vicinity of the Yancheon river to the Yancheon river; on the same day, around 13:54 km in the direction of Busan; on the other hand, about 10 km in Busan, from the Yancheon river to the Yancheon river to the Yancheoncheon River to the 205 km.

C. The plaintiffs' isolation

On the other hand, at the time of the above expressway stopping, the Plaintiffs were isolated from each of the relevant areas indicated in the “date of the isolation commencement” column in the attached Table from each of the relevant dates stated in the “date of the isolation commencement” column in the attached Table to each of the relevant dates stated in the “date of the isolation commencement” column in the same list and suffered from pain.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiffs' assertion

Since the Defendant is obligated to maintain and manage an expressway as the managing body of the expressway, the Defendant is obligated to take measures such as snow removal, access control to the expressway, opening of the central highway, provision of traffic information, etc. to ensure the passage of the expressway and thus, in violation of this duty, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiffs damages for delay of snow removal work, neglect of the scene of accident, delivery of erroneous traffic information, failure to take emergency measures, etc., and the Plaintiffs suffer from pain by being isolated from each of the relevant places indicated in the column of the “high location” in the attached list of the attached sheet as compensation for consolation money, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiffs each money indicated in the “amount of Claim” column in the attached list as well as damages for delay.

(2) The defendant's assertion

The defendant, under the conditions of human and physical resources as at the time, has carried out snow removal equipment and the defendant's employees by mobilization, and has done his best to rescue the isolated victims, such as road blocking and the opening of the central separation zone, and there is no negligence as to this case, and there was no defect in the construction and management of the highway at the time.

Even if there are any defects in the construction and management of a harsh road, the plaintiffs were negligent in entering the said section or leaving their vehicles alone on the road without disregarding them despite the defendant's guide broadcasting. Moreover, the plaintiffs' isolation was caused by a natural disaster unforeseeable by the defendant. Therefore, even if the defendant is exempted or responsible in consideration of such circumstances, the negligence should be significantly offset.

B. Relevant provisions

(1) The Road Traffic Act;

Article 6 (Prohibition and Restriction of Passing) (1) When it is deemed necessary to prevent any danger on the road and ensure safe and smooth flow of traffic on the road, the Commissioner of the Local Police Agency may prohibit or restrict the traffic of pedestrians, motor vehicles and horses after designating a section.

(2) When deemed necessary to prevent any danger on the road and to ensure safe and smooth flow of traffic on the road, the chief of a police station may first prohibit or restrict the traffic of pedestrians, motor vehicles, and horses, and then consult with the road manager about the objects, sections, and periods of such prohibition or restriction.

Article 54 (Measures to Prevent Dangers, etc.) When the traffic of any motor vehicle on an expressway or motor exclusive road is dangerous or congested, or may do so, due to any damage to the road, the occurrence of a traffic accident or any other cause, police officers may prohibit or temporarily restrict the traffic of motor vehicles in progress within the necessary limit in order to prevent such danger or congestion and to ensure the safe and smooth flow of traffic, or order the drivers of such motor vehicles

Article 65 (Consultation about Permission, etc. to Occupy and Use Roads) (1) Where a road management agency intends to conduct an act falling under any of the following subparagraphs, the Commissioner General of the National Police Agency, the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, a Metropolitan City Mayor, a Do Governor, or the head of a Si or Gun shall

2. When intending to prohibit or restrict the passage under Article 53 or 54 of the Road Act.

(2) The Road Act

Article 53 (Prohibition or Restriction of Passage) (1) If it is deemed unavoidable on account of road-related works, or passage is deemed dangerous on account of damage to roads or other causes, the road management agency may prohibit or restrict the passage of roads after determining a certain section.

(1) If it is deemed necessary in order to preserve road structures and prevent any danger to operation, the road management agency may restrict the operation of vehicles (referring to the vehicles as referred to in Article 2 of the Automobile Management Act and construction machinery as referred to in Article 2 of the Construction Machinery Management Act) on such terms and conditions as the Presidential Decree may determine.

(3) Enforcement Decree of the Road Act

(3) In case of natural disasters or other emergencies, the road management agency may restrict the operation of vehicles other than those as referred to in paragraph (2), if it is necessary for the preservation of road structures and the prevention of traffic danger.

(c) Markets:

(1) Determination of defects in the installation and management

앞선 인정 사실과 다음과 같은 사정 즉, ① 이 사건 제1고립구간에 관하여, 기상청이 2004. 3. 4. 15:00경 충청남북도 지방에 예비특보를 발표하였고, 같은 달 5. 04:00경 대설주의보를 발령하였으므로, 이 사건 각 고립구간 부근에 폭설이 내릴 것으로 어느 정도 예상되었던 점, ② 이 사건 제1고립구간에 위치한 남이고개의 경사도는 신설 고속도로 경사도 표준인 3%보다 높은 5.5%로서 고속도로 최대허용경사도인 6%에 가까우므로 폭설이 내릴 경우 차량들이 고개를 넘지 못할 가능성이 매우 높았던 점, ③ 이 사건 제1고립구간의 정체는 과거 이 지방의 최대 적설량과 같은 약 15cm 정도의 눈이 내린 2004. 3. 5. 07:00경부터 이미 시작된 점(2004. 3. 5. 07:00경부터 폭설로 인하여 대형화물차량들이 남이고개를 넘지 못하고 뒤엉켜 있었고, 2004. 3. 5. 09:00경에는 이 사건 제1고립구간에 신적설량 19㎝의 눈이 내린 상황이었음에도 불구하고 제설차량들이 고립되어 더 이상 제설을 할 수 없게 되었으므로, 2004. 3. 5. 07:00경부터 이 사건 원고들의 고립이 시작된 것이라고 봄이 상당하다), ④ 피고 충청지역본부는 2004. 3. 5. 07:00경 이 사건 제1고립구간에서 폭설로 인하여 차량이 뒤엉키는 등 교통정체가 시작되는 모습을 CCTV를 통하여 확인하였고, 2004. 3. 5. 09:20경 신적설량이 19㎝ 이상이고 차량정체구간이 16㎞나 되었음을 확인하였으므로, 피고가 제정한 ‘교통정보센터 운영업무 기준’ 제11조, 제19조에 따라 지체 없이 피고 본사 소관부서 및 교통정보센터에 보고하여야 함에도 불구하고, 이 사건 제1고립이 시작된 2004. 3. 5. 07:00경보다 무려 3시간 후인 10:10경에 이르러서야 뒤늦게 도로본부에, 이어 11:20경 교통처에 각 본사 차원의 특단의 조치를 마련할 필요성이 있음을 보고한 점, ⑤ 피고 도로본부는 피고 충청지역본부로부터 위와 같은 상황을 보고받았으므로 ‘2004 방재세부집행계획’ 재해상황별 조치계획 3단계에 따라 지구순찰대장과 지역본부장이 협의하여 현재의 기상에 따른 정체 상황과 향후 고속도로로 진입하는 차량의 규모, 기상청에서 예측한 기상상황 등을 고려하여 교통제한 및 운행정지 조치를 취하여야 함에도 불구하고, 제설작업을 통하여 이 사건 제1고립구간의 정체구간이 쉽게 해소될 것으로 안일하게 판단한 채 별다른 조치를 취하지 않고 있다가, 2004. 3. 5. 12:30경 피고 본사 교통처로부터 교통통제 필요성을 보고받은 후 비로소 사태의 심각성을 인식하고 뒤늦게 피고 충청지역본부장에게 교통통제 지시를 내린 점, ⑥ 충남경찰청 제2지구대로부터, 피고 충청지역 상황실은 2004. 3. 5. 10:35경, 피고 본사 정보센터는 2004. 3. 5. 11:00경 중앙분리대 개방 및 톨게이트 차단 등에 관하여 협의요청을 받았으나, 그로부터 3시간이나 지난 2004. 3. 5. 14:00경 비로소 충남경찰청 제2지구대와의 중앙분리대 개방 및 톨게이트 차단 등에 관한 협의를 통하여 뒤늦게 일부 구간의 진입 통제 및 중앙분리대를 개방하여 차량들을 우회시키기 시작한 점(이에 대하여 피고는 도로법과 도로교통법에 피고와 고속도로순찰대가 서로 협의하여 교통을 차단할 수 있도록 규정되어 있을 뿐 구체적인 권한행사 절차가 규정되어 있지 않아 진입 통제 등이 늦어졌다는 취지의 주장을 하나, 도로법 제53조 , 제54조 , 도로법 시행령 제28조의3 , 도로교통법 제65조 의 규정에 의하면, 피고와 고속도로순찰대가 서로 협의하여 교통을 차단할 수 있도록 규정되어 있으므로, 당연히 천재지변 등 사태가 있을 경우를 대비하여 미리 경찰청과 협의를 통하여 교통차단 협의에 관한 절차를 세워두어야 할 것인데, 평소 이런 대비를 하지 못한 것도 역시 고속도로 관리상의 하자에 포함된다), ⑦ 위와 같이 일부 구간의 진입 통제가 이루어졌음에도 불구하고 그 조치를 완전하게 실시하지 못하여 결국 2004. 3. 5. 14:00경부터 2004. 3. 6. 18:00까지 사이에 9개 영업소를 통하여 8,881대의 차량을 추가로 진입시키는 바람에 제설작업이 더욱 어려워지게 한 점, ⑧ 이 사건 제2고립구간에 관하여, 2004. 3. 5. 05:00경 서울방향 옥천 부근에서 대형화물차량들의 5중 연쇄추돌사고를 수습하는 과정에서 사후 차량정체 등 후유증에 대한 대책 없이 그 부근 양방향을 완전히 차단하고 사고처리를 하는 바람에 차량 정체가 시작된 점, ⑨ 2004. 3. 5. 10:20.경 위 사고차량들을 모두 견인함으로써 일단 양방향 모두 개통이 되었으나, 위 사고 여파로 여전히 차량들이 정체되어 있었고 그때 폭설까지 겹쳐 위 차량들의 정체가 계속하여 증가하게 된 점, ⑩ 2004. 3. 5. 13:54경 위 부근의 부산방향 정체현상은 해소되었으나 서울방향의 정체현상은 계속하여 가중되었고, 이에 더하여 이 사건 제1고립구간의 정체현상 여파로 위 부근에도 이 사건 제2고립구간이 형성된 점 등의 여러 사정에 비추어 보면, 피고는 당시 이 사건 각 고립구간의 교통정체를 충분히 예견할 수 있었고, 따라서 미리 정해진 재해상황별 조치계획에 의하여 즉시 차량의 추가 진입을 통제하는 등 교통제한 및 운행정지조치를 취하여야 할 의무가 있었으며, 만약 피고가 적절하게 위와 같은 의무를 이행하였으면 이 사건 각 고립구간의 교통정체를 회피하거나, 또는 완전히 사고를 방지하지는 못한다 할지라도 적어도 그 고립시간을 상당히 줄일 수 있었음에도 불구하고, 안일한 태도로 교통제한 및 운행정지 등 필요한 조치를 충실히 이행하지 아니함으로써 원고들을 별지 목록 기재와 같이 고속도로에 장시간 고립시키는 사태를 야기하였으므로, 당시 피고에게는 고속도로의 관리상 하자가 있었던 것으로 인정된다.

(2) Determination as to whether to grant immunity due to negligence offset and force majeure

In addition, there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiffs at the time did not neglect the defendant's guidance that they newly entered or left the above ancient section, and even if there was such error against the plaintiffs, according to the facts of the front line recognition, since the defendant, who is responsible for all responsibility for the management of the highway at the time, failed to properly implement the measures to control the entry into the expressway, so it is possible to enter the vehicle additionally, so the defendant's fault is much larger than the defendant's fault prior to his fault. In addition, if the plaintiffs who were in the isolation situation due to the absence of snow removal work and control over each of the above ancient sections of this case, left their vehicles and left the site, they can be sufficiently acceptable by doing acts to avoid the pain and danger of the extreme situation, and therefore, the plaintiffs' negligence cannot be deemed to have reached the extent that they are exempted from the defendant's responsibility.

In addition, the snow of this case, like the prior recognition of a vessel, has a maximum amount of 100 years of heavy snow, but at the time, the defendant is deemed to have been able to avoid the traffic condition of each of the isolation sections of this case or to reduce the number of hours of isolation at least by predicting the traffic condition of each of the isolation sections of this case in advance, and thus, it cannot be deemed to constitute a natural disaster or force majeure that cannot be predicted at all.

Therefore, there is no reason for the defendant's defense of offsetting negligence and force majeure (in addition to the exemption by negligence, it appears that the defendant claims a set-off due to negligence that did not reach the degree, but in this case that only seeks compensation for mental damage, this is merely a ground for offsetting negligence, not a ground for offsetting negligence, and therefore, it shall be judged again within the scope of compensation for damages 3.

(3) Sub-decisions

Under Article 758 (1) of the Civil Act, the defendant is responsible for compensating the plaintiffs for mental damages caused by the isolation accident in this case due to defects in the management of the expressway, which is a structure.

3. Scope of damages.

A. In determining the amount of consolation money for the plaintiffs liable for compensation, mental or physical suffering due to the prolonged isolation on an expressway where the plaintiffs are required to compensate for, as a matter of course, caused drilling and pains, and the defendant predicted the communication timing of each isolated section of this case and announced several times to the public. The defendant increased the suffering of the plaintiffs by falsely predicting the communication timing of each isolated section of this case, the elderly aged 70 years or older, minor, and women, due to inconvenience in using toilets than adults, weak physical and mental sufferings seems to be more serious. In addition, the physical and mental suffering can be seen as deepening one story as long as high time is long, and even though the defendant knew the situation of each isolated section of this case to the drivers of this case through the guidance broadcasting, the defendant made efforts to protect the drivers of this case by leaving the expressway of this case and by failing to reach the designated area of each of the above areas, and even if the situation of each of the above areas of the Korean Red Cross, some of the vehicles were found to have been abandoned by the Korean Red Cross, taking into account the situation of each of this case.

The amount of consolation money shall be 350,000 won in the case of persons whose isolation hours are less than 12 hours, 400,000 won in the case of persons whose isolation hours are less than 12 hours but less than 24 hours, and 50,000 won in the case of women and older than 24 hours, and 50,000 won in the case of women and older than 70 years old at the time of the accident. In addition, it is reasonable to determine the amount calculated by adding 10,000 won in each corresponding amount to the above amount. If the plaintiffs calculate consolation money in accordance with the above criteria, it shall be

B. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiffs damages for delay at each rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from March 6, 2004, which is the date of the order of each of the above amounts, to March 6, 2004, the date of the order of each of the above amounts, to the date of the order of this case, to April 19, 2006, and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the next day to the date of full payment.

4. Conclusion

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

[Attachment] The omission:

Judges Hwang Sung-ju (Presiding Judge)