B. Whether there exists any defect in the management and maintenance of the dologram square

B. In addition, in the case where the passage of automobiles into the plaza is permitted or left unattended because bicycles and roller rink rental businesses run their businesses and play or rest areas under the permission of the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Office, it cannot achieve the purpose as a central square such as providing citizens’ rest space, and the possibility of personal accidents is increasing. As such, the Seoul Metropolitan Government, the management entity of the plaza, as the main agent of the plaza, should take measures to prevent unauthorized entry and operation into the plaza, and can take measures to block the unauthorized entry and operation into the plaza of the automobiles, and as the content of such measures, mobile hacks, protrudings, protrudings, and tri-type obstacles, etc. can be placed, and security guards can also be placed.

2. The remaining claims of the plaintiff 1 and 2 are dismissed, respectively.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

(a) The basic facts

(1) The occurrence of the instant accident

(A) Nonparty 1 was a national school resident in 1970, who was born and graduated from the year her mother was born to the surrounding family environment, such as suicide by his father in the year her mother was born, and has been employed in both horse factories, bags factories, etc., but has continued to be dismissed due to congenital disorder, and has lived in the world where he was suffering from poor living while moving to Seoul, Busan, and Daejeon.

(B) Around October 13, 1991, Nonparty 1 was cut off by using the key of the Seoul (vehicle number omitted) which was set up in the front of the house in Gangseo-gu, Gangseo-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the president of the end-of-life factory located in 7-dong, Gangseo-gu, Seoul, where he was previously employed at around 18:00 on October 17, 1991, with the salary that he was paid at the new launch factory in Busan, which he was on his own work, and was cut down by using the key of the Seoul (vehicle number omitted) which was set up in the front of the house in the 7-dong city of Gangseo-gu, Gangseo-gu, Seoul, the president of the end-of-life plant located in Gangseo-gu, Gangseo-gu, Seoul, and then returned to the members of the Seoul Si on the said car and returned to the day at night on the 18th day of the same month.

(C) On the 19th day of the same month, Nonparty 1 continued to commit suicide at the end of Non-Party 1’s non-party 1’s stringing the world. Accordingly, Nonparty 1’s thought that he would die with those in his wife, and had them die and die with some people in his wife. On the 16:35 day, at the above broadcasting station’s parking lot, Non-Party 1 moved to the entrance of the above K.B.S. and the 19th day after coming to the above K.D., Non-Party 1’s entrance at the entrance and the 19th day, Non-Party 1’s entrance at the 5th day, Non-Party 1’s entrance at the 5th day, which led to death of the 5th day of the above 8th day, and Non-Party 1’s entrance at the 5th day, which led to death of the 5th day of the above 8th day.

(D) Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are parents of the above deceased non-party 2, and Plaintiff 3 is their siblings. Plaintiffs 4 and 5 are their grandparents, Plaintiff 6 and 7 are their parents, and Plaintiff 8 are their siblings, and Plaintiff 9 and 10 are their grandparents, and Plaintiff 11 is their grandparents.

(2) Management status of the Dogdo square

(A) The Hando-dong Seoul Metropolitan Government Hando-dong 2361,989 square (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”) was owned by the Defendant. The land category was part of the luminous route with the width of 25 to 200 meters, extended to 3,000 meters, which led to the front of the Yeongdeungpo-gu Office, before the Yeongdeungpo-gu Office. However, the Defendant filed an application for an alteration of the urban planning with the developer of the urban planning (see Article 11 of the Urban Planning Act) and the implementor of the urban planning project (see Article 23 of the Urban Planning Act), and the Minister of Construction and Transportation made a decision on the alteration of the urban planning under Article 133 of the Construction Division on April 12, 1972.

(B) Article 2(1)1-B(b) of the Urban Planning Act that the Defendant established on the land of this case as the site by the above modified determination constitutes the central large square under Article 2(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree, Article 2(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 44(2)1 of the Rules on the Standards for Urban Planning Facilities, and the central large square is to be installed in the traffic-oriented area so as to make it easy for the general public to utilize for the assembly, event, private bridge, etc. of the majority, and to be equipped with facilities for citizen assembly, event, rest and facilities for pedestrian traffic.

(C) The management of a do-do square can be divided into the management of property and the maintenance of functions. The management of the do-do square can be divided into the management of property. The details of the management of property, such as the permission of occupation and use, the collection of occupation and use fees, the installation of parking lots, the collection of parking fees, and the collection of parking fees, and the management of packaging, repair, sewerage management, toilets, green areas, and landscaping facilities. Since there is no separate statute or provision on the management of the square, the defendant Si regarded the do-do square as a facility that combines the road as provided in Article 2 (2) of the Road Act and fulfills its utility, and manages it by applying the provisions of the Road Act. However, the management of the do-do square as well as the permission of occupation and use and use and the collection of fees, etc. are delegated to the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu under Article 95 of the Local Autonomy Act, Article 5 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Delegation of Administrative Authority, and Article 7 of the Ordinance on Collection of Occupancy and Use Fees

(D) The head of Yeongdeungpo-gu, who was delegated by the Defendant with the foregoing authority to grant permission to occupy and use a doer square to the Yeongdeungpo-gu Council of Saemaul Leaders, and the said Council, based on this, has allowed bicycle rental operators and roller rink rental operators to conduct business against citizens in the doer square.

(E) The do-do square is an open structure surrounded by the large traffic volume (road connecting Seoul and Magazine is located in the square zone). In this context, citizen resting space, such as green areas, is established. Citizens who find this place start from the rental business operator to enjoy or rest the bicycle and roller rink, and take various events and assemblies. At the time of the instant accident, among the edge of the do-do square, the attached drawing indication "d-ma", "ma-A", and "A-B" were installed at the point of "Da-B" but there was no mobility pole at a height of about 1.2m between "Da-B" and "a-B", and approximately 1.2m in diameter, about 15m in moving 15m in diameter began from "B" or "vem in diameter," and there was no change in facilities between "1.3m in size and 13m in size" or "1.3m in size," and there was no change in facilities.

(F) After the accident of this case, the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Office established about 50 c-B from the end of the plaza on September 30, 1992 to the end of the northwest ("C-B") in accordance with Article 1135 of the Seoul Metropolitan City Mayor Policy on September 30, 1992, and installed about 10 m in height and about 27 m in diameter and about 10 m in diameter at approximately 1m in moving-type c-type c-type c-type c-type c-type c-type c-type c-type c-type c-type c-type c-type c). In order to prevent the entry of vehicles, the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Office installed several c-type c-type c-type c-type c-type c-type c-type c-type c).

(Evidence Doz.)

The evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8-6,7,13, 15 through 29, 32 through 35, 10-1 through 9, 12-1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 (the same shall apply to the evidence No. 16), 2, 3-1 through 4, 4-1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8-1, 2, and 9-2, and 6,7, 13, 32 through 35, 10-1 through 9, 12-4, 4-1, 5, 6, 6, 7, and 8-1, 2, and 9 of the evidence Nos. 1-1, and the testimony in order of the witness, the

B. Determination of issues regarding the causes of the plaintiffs' claims and the occurrence of damages claims

Based on the above facts, the plaintiffs claim that the above deceased and the plaintiffs are liable for damages caused by the accident of this case, since the accident of this case occurred due to the defect in the management and maintenance of the leisure plaza managed by the defendant, the defendant is responsible for compensating for the damages caused by the above deceased and the plaintiffs. The following issues are examined in order:

(1) As to whether a do-do square is a road or a plaza

With regard to the claim that the female-do square is an urban planning facility, the defendant asserts that the female-do square is not a square, but a road, so long as there was no procedure to implement the urban planning project, such as whether the implementation plan for the urban planning project under Article 25 of the Urban Planning Act was approved, and there was no change in the previous land category

On the other hand, it is reasonable to view that there has been any change in the current state as long as the mobile facilities blocking the road and the plaza are installed, divided into the road and the plaza, and the vehicle access is controlled and used as the rest space and the event space for citizens, as seen earlier, there is no change in the current state. Rather, it is reasonable to deem that there was a change in the state consistent with the concept of the central forum, and it is not attributable to the fact that part of the plaza is currently being used as a road or land category is being a road.

Then, according to the fact-finding conducted on December 28, 193 on the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor of this court, the affairs of applying for authorization of the implementation plan of the urban planning project of the dodo square were presumed to have been in charge of the Hando Construction Business (Abolition on January 27, 1975) established by the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on the Establishment of the Hando Construction Business Office (Abolition on January 10, 1968) established on January 10, 1968, but it is not possible to confirm whether the above implementation plan was authorized due to the destruction of the documents related to the current document preservation period. However, considering the changes in the current state of the square, it can be expected that the implementation procedure of the urban planning project including the authorization of the implementation plan was carried out according to the above urban planning change decision, and even if the above house management plan did not have been authorized, so far as the construction division publicly announced the change in the urban planning of the construction of the dodo square, it is not concluded that the do square was already established as a public structure.

Therefore, the do-do square is not a road but a do-do square, and the defendant's compliance with the provisions of the Road Act with respect to the management of the do-do square is not because the do-do square is not due to the road but because there is no separate provision concerning the management of the square, so it is only that the provisions concerning the management of the road are applied mutatis mutandis for convenience.

(2) In case of delegation of authority, the subject of liability for damages

According to the above, although the management authority of the dodo square was originally to the defendant, some of the permission for occupation and use of road maintenance and management affairs and the authority for handling the affairs was delegated to the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu, an agency of Yeongdeungpo-gu, which is the subordinate local government of the Si, pursuant to the above ordinances, etc. pursuant to Article 95 of the Local Autonomy Act and the above ordinances, etc., and the plaintiffs asserted that the defendant should be liable for damages due to the defects in the management and maintenance of the dodo square. However, they asserted that the defendant is liable to the Yeongdeungpo-gu, the autonomous Gu (on

However, it is reasonable to interpret that the appointment of a public official under Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act, a supervisor or a person in charge of the construction and management of public structures under Article 5 (1) of the State Compensation Act refers to the person who manages the affairs that are subject to responsibility under the statutes. For example, in the case of a public official of a local government or an agency entrusted by a public official of a local government, the State in the case of the former, and in the case of the latter, the local government shall be the person in charge of compensation in the case of the latter. Therefore, in this case, even if the management authority of the do square is delegated to the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, which is part of the defendant, even if it is delegated to the head of the Si of the Si, the legal person in charge of management and maintenance shall still belong to the Mayor of Yeongdeungpo-gu, who is the head of

However, it is true that Yeongdeungpo-gu also bears the expenses necessary for the management and maintenance of the leisure plaza that is a road within the scope of delegation by Yeongdeungpo-gu under Article 56 of the Road Act, and in this case, there is a possibility that Yeongdeungpo-gu may be liable for damages due to any defect in the management and maintenance of the leisure plaza as a person who bears the expenses under Article 6 of the State Compensation Act. However, it is not that the defendant's liability as the managing body of the administrative affairs is excluded from the liability for damages (in conclusion, it does not affect the conclusion that whether the leisure plaza is a road or the plaza is a road).

Meanwhile, in light of the current state of the do-do square, the entire management authority of the do-do square is not delegated to the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu, but is reserved to the defendant. In light of the above, in light of the status of the do-do square, the right reserved to the defendant is more important in the maintenance of the do-do square, so the defendant should bear liability for damages caused by the defect in the management and maintenance of the do-do square even as the holder of the right reserved in spite of the delegation of some authority.

(3) Whether there is any defect in the management and maintenance of the dolodo square

The plaintiffs asserted that the "Da-B" portion of the above part was caused by the defects in the management and maintenance of the river square by the defendant, which had been left unattendedly, through the "non-party 1" part, the defendant's access to the square is in essence against its essence, and it is not only against the inherent nature, but also against the fact that the river square has been used frequently as a heating place until the Republic of Korea, so it is against the usage of the above space and the example of the use thereof, so it is against the management and maintenance of the river square, so it is argued that there was no defect in the management and maintenance of the river square, so it is difficult to take measures for the police square to take measures such as the removal of the bicycle and the scamb square as well as the removal of the bicycle and the scambine rental business as the main purpose of the police square, which is to prevent the passage of the above facilities from being installed without permission by the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu, as well as to take measures for the removal or maintenance of the passenger square as the main purpose of the police square.

Therefore, only part of the "Da-B at the time of the accident in this case" has a portable h-B, and no facilities have been installed in the remaining part, and no security guards have been installed, it is deemed that it was lack of ordinary safety as a part of the usual h-si square used as a resting space for citizens. Therefore, the defendant, the manager of the doh-do square, cannot be exempted from liability for damages caused by the above defects.

(4) Existence of causation

The Defendant alleged that Nonparty 1 had no causal link with the maintenance and management as a sports and resting space of the instant accident and the dospare, since Nonparty 1 had intentionally received many people at once, and caused the instant accident. However, it appears that the facilities installed after the instant accident were installed at the time of the instant accident, and that Nonparty 1 was able to prevent Nonparty 1 from driving the said vehicle and entering the plaza if there were security guards, and even if it was not completely prevented from entering the plaza, it appears that Nonparty 1 was able to listen to sound generated in the course of shocking the facilities at the time of entry or the warning of security guards and evacuates many people (the above deceased is the 6th and 18th victim). Therefore, the above assertion is rejected.

(5) If so, the defendant is liable to compensate the deceased and the plaintiffs for the damages caused by the accident of this case caused by the defect in the management and maintenance of the dominium as seen earlier.

C. Judgment on the defendant's assertion about limitation of liability

The defendant argued that the plaintiffs 1, 2, 6, and 7, who are children or children, and their parents, neglected their supervisory duties at the time of the accident, that the plaintiffs 1, 2, 6, and 7, who were parents, should take account of these mistakes in calculating the amount of damages because they were shocked by the plaintiffs 6th and 18th, making the first collision accident and speeded by the plaintiffs 1, who continued to reach a considerable distance. However, considering the above, considering that the speed of the above car was above 80km per hour, and that the female square is a place where they are freely playing in an open space and take rest, it is difficult for the above plaintiffs to conduct education in preparation for the situation like the accident in this case, or enter it without any restraint, and thus, it is difficult to expect any protection and supervisory measures for evacuation from the above car that have reached the end. Therefore, the above argument is rejected.

2. Scope of damages.

(a) Actual income:

The above deceased's lost earnings equivalent to the total monetary value of the operating capacity lost by the accident of this case are 57,978,643 won (the deceased non-party 2) and 65,098,663 won (the deceased non-party 3) calculated at the present price at the time of the accident in accordance with the Hofmanial Calculation Act, based on the facts of recognition and evaluation as follows:

A. The deceased non-party 2

(1) Facts of recognition and evaluation

(a) Gender category: South Korea; and

Date of birth: May 24, 1986

Colonel: 5 years of age and 5 years of age at the time of an accident;

Name of rental: 62.96

(b)at least from the 23th anniversary of the date on which the military service is expected to be completed due to his career, occupation and gender, it may obtain the income of the party wage by engaging in daily work at least in urban work.

(c)financial assessment of operating capacity;

530,000 won (21,200 x 25) per month on the basis of the unit government wage rate for an ordinary worker in 1993 for an urban daily worker.

(D) Maximum working age: Before reaching 60 years of age

(e) Livelihood balance: A/3 of import (the fact that there is no dispute)

(Evidence Doz.)

Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 3, 5, 15-1, 1, 2-2, 15-1, and the whole purport of the pleading and the rule of experience

(2) mountain.

(a) the period of time (if the period is less than the last month, the period; hereinafter the same shall apply);

From May 24, 2009 to May 23, 2046.444 months

(b) a suspender (less than cost, less than cost, hereinafter the same shall apply)

530,000 won 】 (1-1/3) 】 (315.786-15.6961) x gold 57,978,643 won

B. The deceased non-party 3

(1) Facts of recognition and evaluation

(a) Gender category: South Korea; and

Date of birth: October 7, 1980

Colonel: 11 years old at the time of an accident;

Name of rental: 57.21 years

(b) Career and occupation: from the 23th anniversary of the day on which he is expected to complete the military service due to his adult age, he may obtain income equivalent to the wages at least by engaging in daily work in urban area.

(c)financial assessment of operating capacity;

530,000 won (21,200 x 25) per month on the basis of the unit government wage rate for an ordinary worker in 1993 for an urban daily worker.

(D) Maximum working age: Before reaching 60 years of age

(e) Livelihood balance: A/3 of import (the fact that there is no dispute)

(Evidence Doz.)

Gap evidence 2-1 to 4, 5, and 15-1, 2 respectively, and the purport of the pleading and the empirical rule

(2) mountain.

(A) Between seasons

44 months from October 7, 2003 to October 6, 2040

(b) The present price:

530,000 won 】 (1-1/3) 】 (296.850-112.6135) = gold65,098,663 won

(b) Funeral expenses;

The expenditure: The funeral expenses of the deceased non-party 2, the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 3, the funeral expenses of the plaintiff 6

Amount of expenditure: KRW 1,300,000 (no dispute)

(c) The above fee;

(1) Reasons for consideration: All circumstances shown in the arguments in the present case, such as the circumstance of the accident, degree of negligence by both parties, age of the deceased and the plaintiffs, family relations, property, and education.

(2) The amount determined;

The deceased non-party 2: gold 10,000,000

Plaintiff 1 and 2: each of the gold 5,000,000

Plaintiff 3: Gold 3,000,000

Plaintiff 4, 5: each gold 2,000,000

deceased Nonparty 3: gold 10,000,000

Plaintiff 6, 7: each gold 5,000,000

Plaintiff 8: Gold 3,000,000

Plaintiff 9, 10: each of the gold 2,000,000

Plaintiff 11: Gold 1,000,000

(d) Inheritance relations; and

A. The deceased non-party 2

(1) The deceased’s property heir: the plaintiff 1 and 2 (each 1/2)

(b) Amount of claims inherited: 67,978,643 won (57,978,643 +10,000,000)

(c)the amount of inheritance;

Plaintiffs: 33,989,321 won (67,978,643 x 1/2) respectively.

B. The deceased non-party 3

(1) The deceased’s property heir: the plaintiff 6, 7 (each 1/2)

(b) Amount of inherited bonds: 75,098,663 won (65,098,663 +10,000,000);

(c)the amount of inheritance;

Plaintiffs: 37,549,31 won (75,098,663 x 1/2) respectively.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of 40,289,321 won (33,989,321 + 300,00 + 5,000 + 5,000), the amount of 38,989,321 won (33,989,321 + 5,000,000 won) to the plaintiff 3, the amount of 3,000,000 won to the plaintiff 4 and 5, and the amount of 43,849,331 won (37,549,30,300,000 + 300,000,000 per annum to the plaintiff 7, the amount of 42,549,310,000,000 won per annum to the plaintiff 10,000,000 won per annum 9,301,000 won per annum, respectively.

Therefore, all of the instant claims filed by Plaintiffs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 are reasonable, and each of the instant claims filed by Plaintiffs 1 and 2 is accepted within the scope of the above recognition on the grounds of the above recognition, and the remainder of the claims by Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition (attached Form omitted)

Judges Dok-ho (Presiding Judge) Dok-ho (Presiding Judge)