2. C

[Defendant-Appellant] Choi Jae-hee and Kim Young-hee, Counsel for defendant-appellant

The representative of the Gu shall be Cho Hee-hee

Law Firm LLC, Attorney Lee Do-hwan et al.

Attorney Kim Jong-ho, Justice Kim Jong-ho, Justice Lee Jae-ho, and Lee Jae-ho

2. Seoul Special Metropolitan City;

Representative City Round

Law Firm Cheong-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Park Jong-sik, and Domin Constitutional Court

3. D.

Attorney Kim Chang-won, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

10. To the 13.13., 5% per annum and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims against the defendant Seocho-gu and each claims against the defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government and defendant D are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 1/2 of the part arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant Seocho-gu shall be borne by the plaintiffs, and the remainder by the defendant Seocho-gu, respectively, and the part arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and defendant D shall

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Until the pronouncement date of this case, 5% per annum and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

shall pay the amount by interest rate.

A. Dogsan is located in the same region, such as Yang Jae-dong, Seocho-gu, Seoul, and Dogdong, with a height of 293 meters located in the same region, and North Korea's mountain slope is located in a housing complex, such as the apartment complex in the west-dong, Dog-dong, and Dong-dong, and the upper and lower village, adjacent to the south cycle. At the west, the area of the housing complex, such as the west-dong, the west-dong, the west-dong, the west-dong, the west-dong, and the west-dong, the apartment complex and the housing complex in the west-dong, the west-dong, the west-dong, the west-dong, the west-dong village, and the rural complex and agricultural facilities are located in the south.

2) On the shores on the south southwest of the west, Defendant Seocho is located in the west Natural Disaster Park (hereinafter referred to as the “ecological Park”) created by Defendant Seocho-gu with the vision support from Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City”), and the west of a tunnel (hereinafter referred to as the “west tunnel”) leading to the right direction from the east to the west side of the west.

B. From September 21, 2010 to September 23, 2010 due to the influence of typhoons, the landslide occurred (hereinafter referred to as the " landslide in 2010"), and the two basins (Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, as the "Dam 2, 200, 000, hereinafter referred to as the "Dam 2010"), which led to the formation of a landslide (hereinafter referred to as the "Dam 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4) and flow into the Newdong apartment and Dom 2, located in the Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, and the specific landslide and the basin of soil and stone occurred from September 21, 201 to September 23, 2010. The specific landslide and the basin of soil and stone occurred are as shown in the annexed Form 2, 2, 100 to July 26, 201, and 15 to July 26, 2011.

27. 07: 40 to 08: 40, as described in the table in the table in the table in the table in the table in annexed Table 3, a approximately 150 landslide occurred in Myeonsan (see attached Table 3, a total of 690,000 square meters, and 3) ( As such, a landslide that occurred in Myeonsan as at the time of 2011 was classified as the column in the column in the column in the column in the 31st basin (attached Table 3, a landslide that occurred in Myeonsan as at the time of 2011; hereinafter the same shall apply); hereinafter, when referring to the basin in which soil and stone occurred due to a landslide in 2011, it refers to the name listed in the column in the same table in the table in the table in the table in the table in the table in the table in the table in the table in the table in the table in the table in the table in the table in the table in the table in the table in the table in the table in the table 15.

C. The deceased E’s death and network E and the plaintiffs’ relationship

1) On July 27, 201, 09: around 00, the deceased (hereinafter referred to as the "accident in this case") was buried in the soil shed, etc. where the wall of the above building was laid down due to a landslide (hereinafter referred to as "the landslide in this case") that occurred in the river basin in the Bodu-ro, among the persons who was set down within one room of the building attached to the Bodu-dong, Seocho-gu, Seoul, Seocho-gu (hereinafter referred to as "the building in this case") around 644-9.

2) Plaintiff B and C are the parents of the network E, and Party A is punished by E. Meanwhile, Party A died on March 16, 2014 while the instant lawsuit is pending, and the Plaintiffs are the successors of Party A.

2. The plaintiffs' assertion as follows: Gap's 1 to 4, Gap's 1 to 14, Gap's 13-1 to 5, Gap's 14, Gap's 17-1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

The Defendants are jointly liable to compensate for the damages caused by the defects in the construction and management of the Defendants’ negligence and the public structures owned or managed by the Defendants.

A. Defendant Seocho-gu filed a claim against Defendant Seocho-gu for damages due to the intention or negligence of Defendant Seocho-gu (hereinafter “Defendant Seocho-gu”), despite the fact that it could have sufficiently predicted that the landslide caused by concentrated rain in Myeonsan was likely to occur again after the landslide in 2010, the Defendant Seocho-gu failed to perform the duty to designate and manage the Myeonsan mountain as a natural disaster risk zone in accordance with the Framework Act on the Management of Disasters and Safety (hereinafter “Disaster Management Act”) and the Countermeasures against Natural Disasters Act, and did not take preventive measures, such as conducting a periodic safety inspection in preparation for landslides or installing prevention facilities of landslides, such as erosion control dams and bank protection walls.

B) Although Defendant Seocho sent a message warning the risk of landslide in the Korea Forest Service immediately before the instant landslide occurred, Defendant Seocho-gu did not take measures to minimize damage, such as informing residents, including the network E, of the fact that the message was sent.

2) Claim for damages due to defective construction and management of public structures

The Dogsan, where an ecological park is installed, falls under the category of public structures under the State Compensation Act. In light of the geological characteristics of the Dogsan and the experience of landslides in 2010, the defendant Seocho-gu continued to develop the development of the Dogsan indisrut acid by reducing the Dogsan and removing trees indisrutly, and making it into the Dogsan by removing the Dogsan without taking necessary measures, such as securing drainage, in order to prevent the occurrence of other landslides, there is a defect in

B. Claim 1 against Defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government) Claim for damages due to intention or negligence of Defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government

Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City was fully aware of or could have known the fact that there was a high risk of a landslide in 2010 due to a landslide in 2010, and thus, it was negligent in designating, managing, and maintaining an area with a high risk of disaster under the Disaster Management Act, and did not perform its duty to recommend the head of Seocho-gu to designate the Soduk River as a natural disaster risk area. 2) Claim for damages due to a defect in the construction and management of public structures.

Defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government as a manager of Myeonsan, failed to perform its duty to supervise whether Defendant Seocho-gu properly installs and manages facilities, such as ecological parks, within Myeonsan, and performed the construction of Myeonsan tunnels, which leads to weakening the ground of Myeonsan by cutting off and blasting at a place of Myeonsan. These defects in the construction and management of Myeonsan and Myeonsan tunnels caused the landslide in this case.

C. Claim against Defendant D

Defendant D leased the instant building, which is an unauthorized building, to the network E, and did not repair the instant building even if it was paid compensation for 2010, and did not take measures such as evacuation of the network E, which is the tenant at the time of the landslide.

3. Whether liability for damages arises;

A. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 1 is as shown in attached Table 1.

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) The geological characteristics of the Dogsan Dogsan Dogsan Dogsan are mainly composed of black Dogho-Mamam which has characteristics that have characteristics that can easily grow by developing Dog and divided aspects according to the lag. Of them, there exist deposited floors, such as shock layer 6 in the upper part of the base rock, shock layer, and occupied strata. Of them, the thickness of the Dogsan Dog-si is one of the factors that have the largest impact on the formation of soil and stone products, along with the gradient of the sand.

B) According to the final report on the addition and supplement of the cause of the landslide in the Dogsan on March 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the “final report”), the geological hazard level of the natural death in the Dogsan was analyzed by classifying the geological hazard level of the Dogsan in the I to V for each geological risk point, taking into account the geological elements (a surface, roof, physical saving, strength), topography factors (high height, slope, slope direction, erosat), and the geological hazard level of the Dogsan in the Dogsan in the Dogsan in the 2011, most of the basins in the Dogsan in the 2011 were the class (general unstable), and some of the areas, including the Bodusan basin, including the Bodun basin, were the class II (serious unstable).

C) Based on these geological characteristics, the risk of landslide was high. As such, the causes of landslide and the high risk of soil and rock generation were analyzed as the causes of landslide and rock generation are vulnerable to landslides and soil and rock products compared to adjacent areas (Cheongsan, Yansan, Yansan, and Yansan), which are the mother cancer of geological, around 2011. (2) The weather observation office collected by data to analyze the strong rain situation at the time of 2011, as shown in the attached Form 6 drawings, was Seoul Observation Office, west Observation Office, and South port of view. The Seoul Observation office was located at a maximum of 11.7 km, 20 m2.0 m20 m26 m2, 160 m26 m2, 160 m26 m2, 160 m2, 260 m26 m2, 260 m2, 160 m2, 260 m2, 26 m260 m2.

C) On July 26, 2011, 201: 00 to July 27, 2011: The amount of rainfalls for each hour from 00 to 00 are as listed in the following table:

D) The result of the comparison of the initial short-term (10%) concentrating the ten-minutes by the year of the U.S. Dogsan, is as set out in the following table.

E) According to the final report, the Seoul Observation Office’s 1961-201-201-201-201-201-201-201-201-201-200-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-2

See Table 3 - 2 The altitude at the top of the westic acid is 293m, the altitude of the westic observation station is 35.5m, the altitude of the southic observation station is 87.1m, the height is 87.1m, and the temperature is low, and the water steam amount that can contain air is low. Thus, it is presumed that the normal part of the westic acid actually shows a little amount than the westic observation station and the westic observation station.

G) As a result of the analysis of data from the luxical observation station around 201, damp snowfall was formed in the direction of Northwest, which is an area in which the luxic acid is linked to the luxic acid around 201. (The luxical theory is composed of about 10 km in the approximate width and about 50 km in length. When the luxic acid is drawn down in the luxic name, if the luxic body of a belt-shaped, and if the luxic body does not come from one another under the luxic body, it is formed in the luxic body, and the other luxic body continued to pass, and the luxic body was formed in the luxic body part, and it seems that the luxic body of rainwater was rash for a shorter time in the luxic acid, and it appears that the luxic body appears to have come out of the luxic body of this case, and played more role in the soil of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 11-3, Evidence No. 12-1, Evidence No. 12-2, Evidence No. 14, Evidence No. 17-1 through 3, Evidence No. 19, Evidence No. 21, Evidence No. 1-1 through No. 8 ( = Evidence No. 1-1 through No. 1-8), Evidence No. 3, Evidence No. 4, Evidence No. 6-1 and No. 6-2, and the whole purport of oral arguments. Whether there is a statutory violation against Defendant Seocho-gu)

In order to recognize the State liability due to omission of a public official, as in the case of recognizing the State liability for compensation due to an act of a public official, the requirements of Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act, which provides that “When a public official inflicts damage on another person by intention or negligence in violation of the statutes,” should be met.” “In violation of the statutes,” does not mean that a public official’s duty to act explicitly is stipulated in the laws and regulations within a strictly formal meaning, but does not mean that such act goes against the above. It includes cases where the public official’s duty to act is not complied with such rules and regulations as respect for human rights, prohibition of abuse of powers, and good faith, and where such act lacks objective justification. Therefore, if a situation of imminent and serious danger to the lives, bodies, property, etc. of the public official has occurred or is highly likely to occur, the State, whose inherent mission is to protect the lives, etc. of the public official, should be determined in light of the meaning of the Act and subordinate statutes, if it is impossible to recognize that public official’s duty to act was seriously or unreasonable.

7. 26 Supreme Court Decision 2010Da95666 Decided 26.

B) Whether the obligation to take preventive measures against the designation of the area vulnerable to natural disaster and the landslide is violated

In light of the following circumstances in which the facts of recognition and evidence No. 11-2 and No. 16 are acknowledged as having neglected the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the statements No. 2-1 through No. 8, No. 2-3, No. 3-3, No. 4-1, No. 2, and No. 4-2, and No. 9, the statement of No. 11-2 and No. 16 alone cannot be deemed as having violated the obligation of Defendant Seocho-gu to take preventive measures against the obligation to designate and manage the U.S. Doksan as a natural disaster risk area and the landslide, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiffs

① Article 12(1) of the Countermeasures against Natural Disasters Act provides that “The head of Seocho-gu shall designate and publicly announce an area where a disaster is likely to occur due to topographical conditions, such as habitual flood areas, landslide risk areas, etc.” In this regard, the head of Seocho-gu shall not designate and publicly announce a pro rata mountain as a natural disaster risk area until the time when the landslide occurred in 2011. However, the head of Seocho-gu shall not deem that the head of Seocho-gu violates the duty of designation unless there is any evidence to prove that the price of pro rata mountain after the landslide in 2010 meets the requirements for designation of a natural disaster risk area (to meet the requirements for designation determined by the Administrator of the National Emergency Management Agency after consultation with the head of the relevant central administrative agency) under Article 8(1) of

② Even if there was a need to designate the area as the area as the area as the area as the area as the area as the area as the area subject to the natural disaster management under the Disaster Management Act, in principle, central administrative agencies and local governments have a duty to take measures to prevent disasters in an area not designated as the area as the area subject to the natural disaster management under the Countermeasures against Natural Disasters Act (see Article 3 subparag. 5), and if the price as the area subject to the natural disaster management under the instant landslide was designated as the area as the area subject to the natural disaster management under the Countermeasures against Natural Disasters Act, Article 13, 14, and 15 of the Countermeasures against Natural Disasters Act shall be applied, so that an environment more suitable for the prevention of disasters may be created through the improvement and development restriction of such area. However, since the head of Seocho-gu did not designate the area as the area subject to the natural disaster management under the instant landslide, it cannot be readily concluded that Defendant failed to take all measures to prevent disasters in advance or failed to take all preventive measures.

③ Since the landslide occurred in 2010, Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City will implement the project as a comprehensive maintenance train in the forest basin beyond the existing level of recovery. On May 25, 201, Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City requested service expenses to the Korea Forest Service and notified the Seocho-gu head of Seocho-gu Office, etc. of the implementation plan for the forest basin management project centered on Namsan, Dosan, Dosan, and Masan. According to the aforementioned plan, the project feasibility evaluation and design for the project in 2011 has been completed, and the project is to be implemented in connection with the relevant autonomous Gu (Defendant Seocho-gu for Dosan) from 2012 to 2014.

④ Since the landslide in 2010, Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City divided the grades of areas dangerous to forest land, and examined whether each autonomous Gu or autonomous Gu and Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City jointly fall away, water leakage conditions, drainage conditions, and removal of dangerous trees from a brush. Accordingly, Defendant Seocho-gu also performed restoration work and other matters indicated by Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

⑤ On July 7, 2011, the percentage of construction works for the recovery of landslides in 2010, located in the 2010-gu U.S., U.S. as of July 7, 201, was 70%, and was scheduled to complete restoration works until July 29, 201.

(6) On July 201, Defendant Seocho-gu requested the Seoul Metropolitan Government to operate the project to maintain dangerous forest facilities, and received allocation of KRW 90,000,000 on the 22th of the same month.

7) The Plaintiffs asserted that the instant landslide was caused by the lack of Defendant Seocho-gu’s preparation against the landslide, despite the fact that the instant landslide was caused by the strongest level in 2011.

However, as seen in the final report, the fact that the maximum rainfall of the Seocho Observation Station was analyzed in the frequency of five to twenty years, the maximum rainfall of the South port observation station was analyzed in the frequency of seven to one hundred years, but the Seoul Observation Station, which is the basis for interpreting the frequency of such rainfall, is located at a point where it was located at a point where it was located at a distance of one and half km, as the result of the radar image analysis in 2011, it is difficult to see that the maximum rainfall of the 10th of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 2012,6, and 10th of the 10th of the 201st of the 10th of the 201st of the 1st of the 201st of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 1st of the 201st of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 10th of the 2nd of the 1010th of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 10.

C) Whether there was negligence in failing to issue a landslide warning and to take measures for resident evacuation

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged as above, Gap evidence 7-1, 2, and Eul evidence 7-1, 2-1, 2-2, 9-2, and 17 of Eul evidence 2-9 through 17, the public official in charge of the landslide risk management in Seocho-gu or the public official in charge of disaster management in charge of at least the defendant's landslide risk management system (hereinafter referred to as " landslide risk management system") at least as of July 27, 201: 40: (a) around 20, the degree and trends of the landslide in 2011; (b) the landslide risk of the landslide management system; and (c) the landslide risk of the landslide in 2010, it was sufficiently known that the requirements for issuing a landslide warning were met; and (d) the residents' duty of care was not issued to the residents' new landslide risk management system, such as the realistic possibility of the landslide; and (e) the possibility and possibility of the residents' safety and property of the apartment.

① Since 2006, the Korea Forest Service affiliated with Defendant Republic of Korea established a landslide management system and supplied it to each local government.In consideration of slope length, mother cancer, slope location, tree type, surface form, earth depth, and gradient, the landslide management system provides nationwide mountainous district through the Internet homepage of the Korea Forest Service with a map indicating potential landslide risk areas classified by risk grade at four levels. Of the lelimic acid, the areas, such as the new-dong apartment, uan apartment, and uan apartment are classified as Grade I landslide risk areas in the item from around 2006 to around 206.

(2) If the real-time weather information of the Korea Meteorological Administration is automatically transmitted to a landslide management system, and if the system satisfies the risk standards as a result of the automatic analysis of the information transmitted by the Korea Meteorological Administration, it shall send text messages to public officials in charge of the relevant local government, and the local government so transmitted shall determine the actual weather conditions and take measures such as issuing a landslide warning or warning pursuant to Article 38 of the Disaster Management Act in accordance with the situation and dissemination system.

(3) The criteria for issuing a warning warning and warning of earth and stone, which have been enacted in the Korea Forest Service in 193, shall be as specified in the following table, and text messages that inform public officials in charge of the relevant basic local government shall automatically be sent, if at least two requirements are met according to the real-time weather information of the Korea Meteorological Administration in a specific area under the landslide management system, among three of the following standards:

④ On June 2008, the Korea Forest Service recommended each local government to comply with the regulations on the warning and warning system of landslides (13). The data contain the legal basis for issuing a landslide warning and warning under the Disaster Management Act to the head of the regional headquarters (the Mayor/Do Governor or the head of the Si/Gun/Gu) under Article 38 of the Disaster Management Act (the Mayor/Do Governor or the head of the Si/Gun/Gu) and the legal basis for issuing a landslide warning and warning under Article 38 of the Act on Disaster Management, as at the time of sending text messages sent from the landslide management system, “in the region of your jurisdiction, as at the time of sending the landslide warning (the warning)”, the data was analyzed by the real-time weather information, and thus, the method of actively reviewing the issuance of the landslide warning and warning; the method of viewing the information from the landslide management system; the method of changing the phone number received from the said system; the method of issuing the landslide warning and warning (including the strengthening of the emergency service system, the inspection of the landslide risk area, and measures for residents).

(5) On April 14, 201, the Korea Forest Service sent a public letter to each local government on April 14, 201, stating that it will concentrate on and investigate mountainous districts, such as residential areas and areas adjacent to buildings, and additionally designate and manage mountainous districts at risk of landslides as a dangerous area.

(6) On May 18, 2011, the Korea Forest Service shall conduct a meeting of the Forest Disaster Prevention Agency for each local government to provide education on the building and diameter of the landslide management system, flow chart, methods of use, etc., and conduct such training.

5. 31. 31. For the public officials belonging to local governments across the country, "a mother training was conducted on the transmission of text messages indicating a landslide crisis situation, and on the issuance of towing and warning, etc." At the time of the above mother training, the public officials belonging to Seocho-gu did not participate in the training. At the time of the above mother training, the above mother training deals with the transmission of landslide risk forecast information in the Korea Forest Service (radio of the situation), the registration of the system of reporting landslide forecast, warning, and issuing information (the receipt of the situation and the entry of forecast and warning information), the reporting of landslide damage investigation, emergency restoration, and damage damage (report of damage damage). Meanwhile, the public officials in charge of the defendant Seocho-gu did not participate in the above mother training on June 15, 201 for local governments who did not participate in the above mother training.

7) From June 22, 2011 to July 27, 2011, the Korea Forest Service issued a landslide risk warning pursuant to the landslide management system to each of the heads of regional local governments, including the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, on six occasions, through official announcements, and issued a landslide risk warning pursuant to the landslide management system, and announced local residents to promote the evacuation of residents in a safe area.

④ From June 29, 2011 to July 26, 2011, the Seoul Mayor also issued orders to the head of basic local autonomous organizations, including the head of Seocho-gu, to conduct a thorough inspection on areas vulnerable to disaster in preparation for concentration on five occasions, to strengthen emergency duty attitude, and to enter whether to issue a landslide warning or warning ( radio waves to the unit residents) under the landslide management system.

1. On July 26, 201, July 26, 2011, the day immediately before the landslide in this case occurred: 32 and 20: 24, and the following day: 31, the Korea Forest Service sent a text message to four public officials in charge of the defendant Seocho-gu who are registered as the public officials in charge of the defendant Seocho-gu through the landslide management system. One of them received text message sent three times as above, but the other one was retired as of June 30, 2007, and the other two were not registered with the landslide management system even after the telephone number was changed.

① The Defendant Seocho-gu did not issue a landslide warning or warning to the first half of the 2011, until the landslide occurred, and did not take measures to evacuate local residents. On the other hand, Guro-gu Seoul and Geumcheon-gu received text messages as above from the Korea Forest Service around 201, and issued a landslide warning or warning accordingly.

① In reality, it is impossible to expect the Defendant Seocho-gu, a disaster management agency, to install landslide prevention facilities in the first place in order to prepare for a landslide around July 26, 201. However, considering the weather situation as above, at least the damage was caused in 2010, and some areas in the first place in the first place in the landslide management system were classified as a landslide risk in the first place in the landslide management system, measures to issue a warning and warning to the residents of the first place in the first place in the first place in the first place in the first place in the first place in the middle area in the middle area in the middle area and to evacuate.

It seems that it could be sufficiently expected to minimize human life damage by taking measures.

② Defendant Seocho-gu asserts that there is no legal basis for issuing a landslide warning without clearly disclosing the reasons for not issuing a landslide warning.

However, in light of the relevant legal principles as seen earlier, the Korea Forest Service and the Korea Forest Service have no obligation to issue a landslide warning clearly within a formal meaning in light of the following: (a) it has already prepared data to arrange the measures in accordance with the landslide management system around June 2008 and delivered them to each local government; (b) the data included the resident evacuation measures at the time of issuing a landslide warning or warning; and (c) the head of each local government convened public officials in charge of forest disaster countermeasures at the time of the occurrence of the landslide in this case and performed the mother training, such as the issuance of a warning at home; and (d) the Korea Forest Service and the Defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government immediately before the landslide in this case continuously sent the public notice, issued a landslide warning pursuant to the landslide management system, and ordered the withdrawal of necessary measures, such as the evacuation of residents. Even if so, there is no obligation to issue a landslide warning clearly in the formal meaning of statutes, since there is a risk of imminent and significant danger to the life, body, and property of the citizens, and actually there is such risk.

2) The plaintiffs asserted the defects in the construction and management of public structures on the premise that Myeongsan is a public structure. Thus, the "public structures" under Article 5 (1) of the State Compensation Act means fluids or physical facilities granted for specific public purposes by the State or local governments, and includes not only ownership, lease, and other powers but also cases of de facto management (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 80Da2478, Jul. 7, 1981; 94Da45302, Jan. 24, 1995). The evidence submitted by the plaintiffs alone is sufficient to recognize that Myeongsan itself has been granted for specific public purposes, such as the provision of the general public for use, or that the defendants has de facto control over Myeongsan.

However, the plaintiffs' assertion can be judged on the premise that ecological parks located in Dogsan can be seen as public structures.

B) "Defect in the construction or management of a public structure" under Article 5 (1) of the State Compensation Act refers to a defect in the construction or management of a public structure in a state that the public structure is not equipped with safety ordinarily in accordance with its purpose, and the public structure is not completely in a state of completeness and has any defect in its function.

It can not be said that there was a defect in the construction or management of a public structure. The safety of the public structure is determined based on whether the construction or manager has fulfilled the duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the danger of the public structure, comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the purpose of use of the public structure in question, the current status of the site in use, etc.

23. Supreme Court Decision 2013Da211865 Decided January 2, 201

C) In light of the following circumstances that acknowledged facts as above, Gap evidence Nos. 18 and Eul evidence Nos. 6-2 and the purport of the entire arguments, it is difficult to acknowledge that there is any defect in the construction and management of an ecological park, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

① Pursuant to the Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on Urban Park, the Mayor delegated the affairs concerning the formulation, installation, and management of the creation plan for urban planning facilities (parks and amusement parks) to the head of Seocho-gu, and the defendant Seocho-gu, on April 10, 200, formulated a plan to create the surrounding areas of the reservoir in the 1940s from the shores on the south south Myeonsan-si, the west-gu, Seoul-gu, and requested the defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government to know such creation plan and to provide non-support.

② The head of Seocho-gu who received the Si subsidy from Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City from November 2002 to December 2003, the head of the ecological park was opened around July 2004 in the area where the instant accident occurred, and the instant landslide was located in the development restriction zone. On the other hand, the ecological park was installed on the north north north of the west, while the ecological park was installed on the north north of the west, and it is difficult to view that the construction of the ecological park affected the ground of the landslide basin of this case.

(4) An ecological park was developed by installing various simple facilities and planting teaching trees, etc. around existing reservoirs. In light of such method of creation, it is difficult to deem that any element exists that may weaken the ground of elimination in the process of creating an ecological park. 3) smallness is difficult.

Therefore, Defendant Seocho-gu, like the above-mentioned 1-C, was negligent in issuing a landslide warning to the front day of the landslide of this case and taking measures for resident evacuation.

D. Whether Defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government violated its duty to make efforts to prevent disasters by designating, managing, and maintaining a large scale of disaster risk as an area for which the occurrence of disaster is highly likely.

In light of the following circumstances, the facts of recognition as mentioned above, Eul evidence 2-1 to 17, Eul evidence 3-1 to 3-4, Eul evidence 4-1, 2, Eul evidence 9-2, and Eul evidence 16-2, and each of the evidence Nos. 11-2, and Gap evidence Nos. 16 are acknowledged to have violated the duty of management and maintenance by designating defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government as an area with a high risk of a landslide in the U.S., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Thus, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

① It is clear that Defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government is obliged to make efforts to prevent and reduce disaster by designating and maintaining facilities and areas (facilities, etc. subject to specific management) that are deemed to have a high risk of disaster or to require continuous management for the prevention of disaster. However, the Plaintiffs are merely asserting that Defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government was negligent in performing the above duties, and Defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government should have taken certain measures to prevent the landslide in this case to a certain extent, and in fact, it did not assert and prove that the measures taken by Defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government did not have any effect.

② There is no clear legal standard on whether Defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government can be deemed to have performed the above obligation to take measures, and Article 27(1) of the Disaster Management Act also regulates only the “establishment and implementation of a long- and long-term plan to eliminate the risk of disaster” as a measure to be taken by the head of the disaster management agency with respect to the facilities, etc. subject to specific management under Article 26(1)5 of the same Act, and only “safety inspection or precise safety diagnosis.” Ultimately, whether Defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government performed the above obligation should be determined by case-by-case based on whether it fulfilled the obligation to take measures to the extent generally required by social norms according to the above legal principles.

③ Since 2009, prior to the occurrence of landslide in 2010, Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City selected eight military teams in areas where falling rocks, such as the collapse of the surface of the Myeon in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, are likely to occur, and has implemented the project to improve dangerous facilities in forests, such as flood damage, and the implementation of the project to improve dangerous facilities in forests was carried out to prevent safety accidents such as flood damage.

④ In 2010, the damage caused by landslide and concentrated rain occurred mainly in areas other than the risk saving area where Defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government had focused on the intensive management, Defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government intended to supplement the evise in relation to the priority management facilities on January 201, and to provide services for the formulation of a long-term and long-term improvement plan.

⑤ Since the landslide occurred in 2010, Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City will implement the project as a comprehensive maintenance train in the forest basin beyond the existing level of recovery from the forest basin. On May 25, 201, upon receiving a request for service expenses from the Korea Forest Service, Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City notified the Seocho-gu head of Seocho-gu Office, etc. of an implementation plan for forest basin management project centered on Namsan, Dosan, Dosan, and Masan. According to the aforementioned plan, the project feasibility evaluation and design for the project in 2011 has been completed, and the project is to be implemented in connection with the relevant autonomous Gu (Defendant Seocho-gu for Dosan) from 2012 to 2014.

④ Since the landslide in 2010, Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City divided the grades of areas dangerous to forest land, and examined whether each autonomous Gu or autonomous Gu and Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City jointly fall away, water leakage status, drainage conditions, and removal of dangerous trees of the land.

7) On July 7, 2011, Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City inspected the scene of landslide restoration in July 2011, and confirmed the construction progress ratio of the restoration work in the Dogsan mountain, and instructed the completion of restoration work by July 29, 201.

(8) In light of the above efforts by Defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government, it cannot be readily concluded that Defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government did not take measures to the extent generally required by social norms, such as formulating a long-term plan to prepare for natural disasters, conducting safety inspection, etc. for a period of time that has not passed since the landslide occurred in 2010.

B) Prior to the existence of a violation of the duty to recommend the designation of the large-scale area as a natural disaster risk area, in light of the following circumstances, prior to the existence of a violation of the duty to recommend that the large-scale area of the large-scale area of the large-scale area of the large-scale area of the large-scale area of the large scale of the large scale of the large scale of the large scale of the large scale of the large scale of the large scale of the large scale of the large scale of the large scale of the large scale of the large scale of the large scale of the large scale of the large scale of the large scale of the large scale of the large scale of the large scale of the large scale of the large scale of the large scale of the large scale of the large scale of the large scale of the large scale of the large scale of the large scale of the large scale of the large scale

① In principle, Article 12(1) of the Countermeasures against Natural Disasters Act is the head of a Si/Gun/Gu or the head of a local government (Article 12(1)). Although the head of a metropolitan local government needs to designate a natural disaster area pursuant to Article 12(6) of the Countermeasures against Natural Disasters Act, if the head of a basic local government does not designate a natural disaster area, he/she may recommend the designation of the area. There is no evidence to prove that the cost of the area of the area of the area of the natural disaster (the cost of the area of the area of the natural disaster shall meet the requirements for designation prescribed by Article 8(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Countermeasures against Natural Disasters Act after the landslide in 2010) meets the criteria for the designation of the area of the area of the natural disaster (the designation determined by the Administrator of the National Emergency Management Agency after consultation with the head of the relevant central administrative agency). In light of the efforts of the Defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government, it cannot be readily concluded that Defendant

In light of the above facts and evidence Nos. 6-2, 6-2, 12-1, 12-1, and 6 of the evidence Nos. 6-2, 8-2, and 12-1 to 6, the following circumstances acknowledged to show the overall purport of the pleadings and the above No. 3-2)-3, and the circumstances as seen in the above No. 8 and 16-2, it is difficult to acknowledge that each item of evidence Nos. 8 and 16 has any defect in the construction and management of the ecological park and the Seocho tunnel and there is no other evidence to acknowledge

① Since December 2001, Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City had been running construction works on the Gangnam Metropolitan Highway. Of the said highways, 7-1 sections and 7-2 sections among the said highways were designed to install the Seocho Tunnels. The location of the Seocho Tunnels is as shown in attached Form 7.

1. From November 5, 2008 to April 2, 2011, the period from 2011, the period from November 5, 2008 to 2011, Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City completed the tunnel construction, such as blasting of 7-2 sections, and started the tunnel construction, such as blasting of 7-1 sections, from August 4, 201, which was after the occurrence of the said box.

③ 7- In the instant landslide blasting work, it is difficult to readily conclude that the vibration speed was approximately 0.0 kines below the ordinary blasting vibration permissible 0.2 kines, and thus, the ground of the margin acid was deteriorated. 7-1 Section blasting work was conducted after the instant landslide.

④ There is no other evidence to deem that only the number of Myeongsan in connection with the aforesaid construction works was cut and the number of Myeongsan was cut and the ground of the landslide basin was deteriorated due to the decline in Myeongsan’s multiple pages in the process of performing the construction of the Seocho tunnels before the landslide in this case occurred.

⑤ The final report also analyzes that the occurrence of a tunnel wave did not affect the landslide in 2011 and the occurrence of soil and rock.

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion against the defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government is without merit without further review.

E. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements and images of evidence Nos. 1 through 9 against Defendant D, namely, the Network E agreed to pay KRW 250,00 to Defendant D, monthly rent of KRW 250,00 on December 2, 2010, but did not pay monthly rent and management expenses, etc. from March 201. Accordingly, Defendant D demanded the network E to leave the building of this case without permission. The network E also resided in the first room of the building of this case. On the date of the accident of this case, it is difficult to acknowledge that Defendant D had a large number of rain to the residents of the building of this case, and it was difficult to find that Defendant D’s director or director appeared to work at the company without telephone, and there was no reason to acknowledge that Defendant D’s accident of this case was attributable to Defendant D’s 1 to the instant building of this case without permission, in light of the fact that Defendant D’s 1 was not attributable to the instant building of this case.

4. Restriction on the liability for damages by Defendant Seocho-gu.

In a case of compensation for damages caused by a tort, if the damage suffered by the victim is caused by competition between natural power and the tortfeasor's negligence, it is reasonable to limit the scope of compensation for the perpetrator to the remainder after deducting the portion deemed to have contributed to the natural ability as to the occurrence of damages from the perspective of fair burden of damages. If the victim was negligent in the occurrence or expansion of damages, the scope of compensation liability should be taken into account as a matter of course in determining the scope of compensation liability (referring to the case of Supreme Court Decisions 2010Da7947 Decided January 12, 2012; 2001Da734 Decided June 27, 2003).

In light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire argument in the above acknowledged evidence, namely, the defendant's maximum of 5 meters per hour at the time of the accident in this case, and such dynamic concentration together with the defendant's negligence in the Seocho-gu, resulting in the accident in this case. At the time of the accident in this case, the network E did not receive the defendant's telephone to evacuate to the wind locked, it is reasonable for Seocho-gu to limit the scope of compensation for damages to 40% for the plaintiffs.

5. Scope of defendant Seocho-gu's compensation.

(a) Personal information on lost income (net E);

○ Name: RoE

○ Gender: Male

○ Date of birth: 1988.

○ The age of accident: 23 years and 6 months;

○ The date of occurrence: July 27, 201

○ Maximum working age (tax age): 60 years of age.

○ End date of operation: January 24, 2048

○○ Ratio of Loss of Labor Capacity: 100%) Income and maximum working age: From July 27, 2011, the date of the instant accident, to July 27, 201, the date of the instant accident, to 60 years of age.

24. By the 22th day of each month the urban daily wage (74,00 won, the base amount for the first half of the year 201, as claimed by the Plaintiffs) is based.

3) Deduction for living expenses: Calculation of the total income from July 27, 201, which is the date of death (1/34 of the total income): 260,508, 160 won, or 260, 508, or 159 won, as requested by the Plaintiffs, as of the date of death (260, 508, or 159 won. - 7- 201 period - 201 period - 272048 period - 1- last 2474, 208, the unit wage cost of 208 - 1,628, 628, 176 33, and 33% for living expenses, 437 d d 1248 d d 1563 m 20 m 20 m 20 m 24, 200 m 6360

(b) Funeral expenses (the Plaintiffs): 5,00,000 won (based on recognition: empirical rule). Fruits-based 1) The Defendant Seocho-gu’s liability ratio: 40% (based on negligence: 260,508, 159 won (actual income) ¡¿ 40% = 104,203,263 won (vegetable income; hereinafter the same shall apply);

B) The reasons for taking into account Plaintiff B and C’s property damage: 5,00,000 won (Funeral expenses) = 40% = 2,00,000, 000 won: The deceased’s age and family relations; the occurrence and result of the instant accident; the degree of the deceased’s negligence; the Plaintiffs’ personal relations; and all other circumstances shown in the instant argument) net E: 20,000,000 won; each network of KRW 5,00,000,000: 2,000,000 won.

E. Inheritance 1) Inheritance 124, 203, 263 won (property damage 104, 203, 263 won + 20,00 won + 20,00 won) each of the plaintiffs succeeds to 62,101,631 won (124,203, 263 x 1/263 x 1/2), respectively. 2,00,00 won for inheritance of the network A, respectively, to the plaintiffs as 1,00,00 won (2,00,000 won, X1/2) total 63,101,631 won (62,101, 6310, 6310, 6310, 6310, 6301, 601, 6301, 600 won).

F. Sub-decision

Therefore, Defendant Seocho-gu has each of the Plaintiffs KRW 69,101,631 (the consolation money of KRW 5,00,000 + the inheritance amount of KRW 63,101,631 + funeral expenses of KRW 1,00,000 + the funeral expenses of KRW 1,00,000), and as to this, the date on which the instant accident occurred. < Amended by Act No. 10611, Jul. 7, 20

27. From October 13, 2015, the ruling date of this case, which is appropriate for Defendant Seocho-gu to dispute over the existence or scope of the obligation to pay 5% per annum under the Civil Act and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant Seocho-gu are accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims and the claims against the defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government and defendant D are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Choi Jin-c

Judges Kim Ge-han

Amount

2) The following is in the sub-cipious cipine.

3) The following is located in the 2nd calendar calendar.

4) The phenomenon in which mixtures of rocks, gravel, sand, and soil mixed with water relatively high concentration is rapidly flowing along with sloped surface.

5) The standards for South-North observation station

6) Unexplosion layers accumulated by various transport actions, such as roof, active, fluoral, etc. due to the effects of water and heavy power on the surface of a mountain site, and diverse clocks;

Because the string of the flag is made up of the sedentary deposited materials at a rapid rate, the level of decentralization is poor compared to the shock layer, and the relative density is sknife.

7) 10: 00 to 11: hereinafter the same shall apply.

8) Unit m, hereinafter the same shall apply.

19) 02: 50 to 03: hereinafter the same shall apply.

10) The early observation station and the South port observation station are short of the observation period (the early observation station shall begin to conduct observations from 1995 for the West and from 2010 for the South port observation station, respectively).

Based on the data of the Seoul Observation Station that has been retained for at least 50 years because it is impossible to secure statistical data in order to calculate the frequency (the period of reproduction).

was made.

11) The Plaintiffs also assert the same purport with respect to other Defendants.

12) A cleaning agent, with flowing water, is a cleaning phenomenon.

13) The recipient of the public question is designated only by the Seoul City Mayor (the natural ecosystem director) but the Seoul City Mayor has transferred the public question to each head of the Gu under its jurisdiction.

I seem to have served; hereinafter the same shall apply.