[손해배상(자)][공1997.6.1.(35),1546]
[1] The criteria for determining defects in the construction and management of a road and the criteria for determining defects in the preservation of a road in the event of a third party's act after the construction of a road
[2] 승용차 운전자가 편도 2차선의 국도를 진행하다가 반대차선 진행차량의 바퀴에 튕기어 승용차 앞유리창을 뚫고 들어온 쇠파이프에 맞아 사망한 경우, 국가의 손해배상책임을 부정한 사례
[1] The defects of construction or management of a road shall be determined specifically in accordance with social norms by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the location of the road, structure of the road, traffic volume, traffic conditions in the event of an accident, etc., such as the original purpose of use of the road, location and shape of a physical defect. If a traffic safety defect, which is the original purpose of the road, is caused by an act of a third party after the construction of the road, it shall not be allowed to recognize a traffic safety defect rapidly due to the defects of the road, and it shall not be allowed to remove such defects and restore them to the original state after taking into account all all the circumstances such as the structure, location, environment, and current use of the road in question.
[2] 승용차 운전자가 편도 2차선의 국도를 진행하다가 반대차선 진행차량의 바퀴에 튕기어 승용차 앞유리창을 뚫고 들어온 쇠파이프에 맞아 사망한 경우, 국가의 손해배상책임을 부정한 사례.
[1] Article 5 of the State Compensation Act, Article 758 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 5 of the State Compensation Act, Article 758 of the Civil Act
[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 92Da3243 delivered on September 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 2864)
Kim Tae-soo et al. (Law Office, Attorneys Lee Jong-hee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Korea
Daegu High Court Decision 96Na3938 delivered on December 6, 1996
The plaintiffs' appeals against the part of the judgment of the first instance against the plaintiffs are dismissed, and all remaining appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.
1. Rejection of appeal
In light of the records, the first instance court partially accepted the plaintiffs' claims and rendered a judgment of partial dismissal, and the plaintiffs and the defendant appealed against each of them. The lower court determined only the part against the defendant in accordance with the judgment of the first instance as to the order and its reasoning, and it is clear that the part against the defendant in accordance with the judgment of the first instance was not judged as to the part against the plaintiffs. Therefore, the lower court should be deemed to have omitted a trial as to the part against which the plaintiffs lost in the first instance court, and the plaintiffs' appeal on this part is without merit and cannot be dismissed
2. We examine the grounds of appeal as to the remainder for which the appeal is not dismissed.
The construction or management defects of roads shall be determined in detail in accordance with social norms by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the location of the roads, road structures, traffic volume, traffic conditions in the time of accidents, etc., road usage conditions including the original purpose of the roads, location and shape of physical defects, etc. If a traffic safety defect, which is the original purpose of the roads, is caused by an act of a third party after the construction of the roads, the preservation defects of the roads shall not be easily recognized just because such a defect is found in the road, and the road can be restored to its original state by taking into account all the circumstances such as the structure, location, environment, and current use of the roads concerned, but the existence or absence of such defect shall be determined by individually and specifically examining whether such defect is left (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da3243 delivered on September 14, 192).
원심판결 이유에 의하면 원심은 내세운 증거들을 종합하여 소외 김강영이 1995. 11. 21. 10:30경 피고가 점유 관리하는 대구 달성군 논공면 삼리 소재 편도 2차선의 국도를 프라이드 승용차를 운전하여 가다가 반대방향 도로 1차선에 떨어져 있던 길이 120Cm, 직경 2Cm 크기의 Ｕ자형 쇠파이프가 번호미상 갤로퍼 승용차 뒷타이어에 튕기어 김강영의 승용차 앞유리창을 뚫고 들어오는 바람에 쇠파이프에 목부분이 찔려 개방성 두개골 골절 등으로 사망한 사실을 인정하고, 그와 같은 쇠파이프가 위 도로에 떨어져 있었다면 일단 도로의 관리에 하자가 있는 것으로 볼 수 있으나, 내세운 증거에 의하면 사고 당일 09:57부터 10:08 사이(사고 발생 33분 내지 22분 전)에 피고 운영의 과적차량 검문소 근무자 교대차량이 사고장소를 통과하였으나 위 쇠파이프를 발견하지 못한 사실을 인정하고 피고가 관리하는 넓은 국도상을 더 짧은 간격으로 일일이 순찰하면서 낙하물을 제거하는 것은 현실적으로 불가능하다 하여 피고에게 국가배상법 제5조 제1항 이 정하는 손해배상책임이 없다고 판단하였는바, 기록과 대조하여 검토하여 보면 원심의 위와 같은 사실인정은 수긍할 수 있고, 그러한 사실관계라면 원심의 판단 역시 수긍할 수 있다. 원심판결에 논하는 바와 같은 채증법칙 위반이나 법리오해의 위법이 있다고 할 수 없다. 논지는 모두 이유가 없다.
3. Therefore, among the plaintiffs' appeals, the part concerning the omission of judgment by the court below is dismissed, and all remaining appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)