beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.09.11 2015나12887

구상금

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to B vehicles owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter the Plaintiff’s vehicle), and the Defendant is as follows.

It is the construction manager of a road where an accident described in the port occurs.

나. A은 2013. 7. 13. 04:17경 원고 차량을 운전하여 포천시 이동면 노곡리 803-2 부근 도로(지방도387호선, 이하 이 사건 도로라고 한다)를 산정호수 방면으로 운행하던 중 그 노면의 움푹 파인 곳(이하 이 사건 포트홀이라 한다)에 빠지면서 원고 차량의 우측 앞뒤 타이어 부분이 손상되었다

(hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case")

By August 26, 2013, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 3,607,00 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle damaged by the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is due to the defect in the construction and management of a public structure where the part of the Defendant, who is responsible for road management, failed to repair the road as a public structure, thereby leaving the part of the construction and management of the public structure where the accident was neglected. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, who is the owner of the Plaintiff, with the insurance money paid to A, the insurer under Article 682 of the Commercial Act, the insurance money equivalent to the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, KRW

B. The defect in the construction and management of public structures under Article 5(1) of the State Compensation Act refers to the defect in the construction and management of public structures is in a state of non-safety that the public structures have to have ordinary safety according to their use.

In addition, the above safety should be determined on the basis of whether the installer or manager of the public structure fulfilled his duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the danger of the public structure. In addition, the installer or manager of the public structure.