beta
(영문) 전주지방법원 2016.07.19 2015가단10235

손해배상(기)

Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On November 17, 2012, the deceased driven G City 110 Oral Ba, which he/she owns, and went into the J-Myeon Office in the direction of the J-Myeon Office in the direction of the J-si, Y of the I Village located in Jeollabuk-si, Jeollabuk-do (hereinafter “instant speed prevention threshold”) and went into the center of the J-do Office, while driving the G City 110 Oral Ba, G City 110 on his/her own (hereinafter “the instant accident”). Around November 17, 2012, the deceased was faced with an accident that is going to go beyond the speed of the J-Myeon Office (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

B. In the instant accident, the deceased (hereinafter “the deceased”) died on March 31, 2015, on the ground that he/she was hospitalized at the University Hospital of Mine University and received treatment, due to the injury of “the satise satise satise satise satise satise satise satise sate sate sate sate sate sate sate sate sate

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 12, and 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the plaintiffs' claims

A. The gist of the plaintiffs' claim in this case is that the defendant is obliged to establish and manage the speed limit installed on the road at the location of the accident in this case, and to prevent the risk of damage to the third party's life, body, and property from being operated beyond the speed limit.

However, the speed prevention threshold of this case is installed before the accident of this case goes through the fire, and according to the "Road Safety Facilities Installation and Management Guidelines", the speed prevention threshold must be colored with reflectors and be installed at a point of 20 to 250 meters from the speed prevention threshold on the road to easily recognize the speed prevention threshold at night, despite the fact that there was an excessive speed and a sign indicating the distance from the speed prevention threshold on the road. However, the speed prevention threshold of this case was not done as to the speed prevention threshold at the time of the accident of this case.