X Representative Director

Y Law Firm, Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Representative City Mayor Dognam

Attorney Park K-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant

2. Korea;

The legal representative Kim Minister of Justice

Litigation Performers Z

2. All of the plaintiff's claims against the defendants falling under the above revocation part are dismissed. 3. Total costs of the lawsuit are borne by the plaintiff.

The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 19,56,292 won with 5% interest per annum from July 30, 2005 to the date of final delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

The following facts may be acknowledged as a whole by taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings in each description of Gap evidence of 1 to 9, Eul evidence of 2, Eul evidence of 5 (including each number):

A. At around 10:30 on December 8, 2003, A driven a car owned by it (hereinafter referred to as an “accidented vehicle”) and caused an accident to shock the B driver’s freight vehicles (hereinafter referred to as “damageed vehicle”) moving to the right side from the left side of the accident vehicle, while driving from the area of the tunnel to the area of the annual market at the vicinity of the tunnel, while driving a car owned by it. As a result, B suffered an injury, such as an catum dye, etc. requiring three weeks medical treatment, and damaged the accident vehicle and the damaged vehicle.

B. The above accident site is a four-distance intersection where traffic is controlled by signal apparatus. At the time of the accident, the signal apparatus in the direction of the vehicle driving at the time of the accident was in a state where red and green signal was being occupied simultaneously, and the signal apparatus in the direction of the driving of the damaged vehicle was occupied by a driving signal (green system). At the time of the accident, the traffic control by police officers, etc. was not performed on behalf of the signal apparatus in the accident at the time of the accident.

C. The Plaintiff is an insurer that entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with the above A to compensate for any damage to another person caused by the operation of the accident vehicle from July 1, 2003 to July 1, 2004 with respect to the accident vehicle. Defendant Busan Metropolitan City is an installation and manager of signal apparatus at the above accident site, and Defendant Republic of Korea bears the burden of the expenses, such as salary, etc., for police officers under the Busan Metropolitan City Police Agency entrusted with the management of the above signal apparatus by Defendant Busan Metropolitan City.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff, at the time of the accident, caused the accident to be red and green signal at the same time, and caused the accident to enter the above intersection by driving the vehicle in question, and caused the collision with the accident while driving the vehicle in question by driving the vehicle in question. Although the defendant Busan Metropolitan City is responsible for installing and managing the above signal apparatus, it was erroneous in neglecting the above signal apparatus in the state of trouble. Since the above error of the defendant Busan Metropolitan City caused the accident in this case, as a joint tortfeasor with the driver of the accident in question, the defendant Busan Metropolitan City is liable to compensate for the damage caused by the accident in this case and the damage caused by the damage of the damaged vehicle as a joint tortfeasor with the driver of the accident in question. The defendant Republic of Korea is liable to compensate the defendant Busan Metropolitan City and the joint liability with the defendant under Article 6 (1) of the State Compensation Act as a person who bears the burden of paying the salary to police officers under the Busan Metropolitan Government's control over the above signal apparatus, the plaintiff's total amount as the insurer of the above A, and thus, is liable to compensate the defendants for damages of this case 295%.

3. Determination

A. The defects in the construction or management of a public structure under Article 5 (1) of the State Compensation Act refer to the state in which the public structure is not equipped with safety ordinarily required for its use. The defects in the construction or management of the public structure can not be said to have any defects in the construction or management of the public structure only because the public structure is not completely in perfect condition and has any defects in its function. In determining whether the safety has been satisfied, the criteria should be taken to determine whether the construction 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 by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the purpose of use of the public structure in question, the present state of the place of installation and the situation of the use thereof, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da5404, Feb. 25, 2000). In a case where there is no possibility for occurrence and avoidance of damages due to the defects in the construction or management of the public structure from an objective point in time and location.

(5) In light of the above-mentioned situation that the above-mentioned signal apparatus could not be found to have been operated at the same time as the above-mentioned signal apparatus at the time of the accident, but as seen earlier, there were 60 and 900 emergency signal apparatus at the time of the accident to be operated at the time of the accident, and thus, it could not be easily recognized that the accident occurred at the same time as the above-mentioned signal apparatus at the time of the accident. However, in light of the overall purport of oral proceedings, there were 1: B, and 2, 3, and 5 (including paper numbers) if the accident occurred at the time of the accident, and there were 60,00 emergency signals at the time of the accident to be operated at the time of the accident, the number of signals at the time of the accident, such as the above-mentioned signal apparatus, and the number of signals at the time of the accident to be operated at the time of the accident to be inspected by the Central Police Agency as well as the number of signals at the time of the accident.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case based on the premise that there is a defect in the installation or management of the above signal apparatus to the defendant Busan Metropolitan City is dismissed without any further consideration. Since the part against the defendants in the judgment of the court of first instance which partially different conclusions is unfair, the part against the defendants in the judgment of the court of first instance which has partially different conclusions is accepted by the defendants' appeal, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendants corresponding to the revoked part is dismissed,

Judge Sung-sung

Judge Senior Superintendent;