Plaintiff (Attorney Yu-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Jeollabuk-do et al. (Law Firm Domin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

February 15, 2011

1. The Defendants shall pay to each Plaintiff 21,474,470 won with 5% interest per annum from July 15, 2009 to March 8, 201, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 2/3 is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendants.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendants pay to each plaintiff 64,292,00 won with 5% interest per annum from July 15, 2009 to the delivery date of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

(a) Facts of recognition;

[Ground] Facts without dispute, Gap 7, 8, 10 evidence, Eul 1 to 10 evidence, Eul 1 to 9 evidence (including each number), the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

(1) As a local second-class river, Defendant Jeollabuk-do managed it as a management authority.

(2) Around June 2003, 2003, the Dogsan Regional Land Management Office, under the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs of the Republic of Korea, issued an order to repair the Dogcheon Construction Co., Ltd. as part of the Geum River basin water control project in order to maintain the old Dogcheon Dam by acting on behalf of Defendant Jeollabuk-do, which is the Dogcheon Management Office, and Duk Construction Co., Ltd., Ltd.

(3) Of the long-lines, a point located in front of the ○○○○ located in the Jeonju-gun ( Address 3 omitted) located in the Jeoncheon-gun (hereinafter “instant flood control point”) was not agreed upon between the Dosan Regional Land Management Office and the Nonparty, regardless of the above ○○○’s agreement on compensation between the Nonparty and the Do governor, and eventually, around September 19, 2008, at least 200 meters away from the wind that delayed the construction until the compensation relationship is completed by the Central Land Expropriation Committee’s decision.

(4) However, from July 14, 2009 to February 2:00, 164.0mm (in particular, from July 14, 200 to 23:00 of the same month, from 14:0 to 24:0 of the same month, from 23:0 to 24:00 of the same month, from 23:0 to 24:0 of the same month, from 23:0 to 24:00 of the following day, from 0:00 to 1:00 of the following day).

(5) On July 15, 2009, at around 03:00, the flood control point of the instant flood control area, which was located within the construction section of the Corporation, the Plaintiff’s plastic house facilities installed in the area of the neighboring North Korean Dos, which caused the inundation of the river water, and caused the Plaintiff’s plastic house facilities installed in the area of the neighboring North Korean Dos, such as the said concentration facilities, containers, farming machinery, and vegetable aircraft, etc., to dive off or flooded agricultural products, etc. (hereinafter “the flood of this case”).

(6) Meanwhile, the planned flood level at the upstream point 20 meters away from the flood control point of this case is 71.23 meters (e.g., flood level; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the height of the previous bank is 69.96 meters. The planned flood level at the downstream point 20 meters away from this point is 71.08 meters and the previous bank height is 70.03 meters.

B. Determination as to whether there is a defect in the ceiling.

A river as a natural structure has no choice as to its original installation, there is a lot of natural and technological existence in a state of danger, and there are many cases where it is impossible to remove danger conditions in a simple manner. It is difficult to predict the source of flowing water, such as the size and scope of rainfall, time of occurrence, etc. while carrying out a natural phenomenon, which is the source of flowing water, and it is difficult to predict the occurrence of flood, etc. In fact, there is little difficulty in carrying out a river management based on experiments and actual flood, and eventually, it is inevitable to grasp the river due to flood experience in the past. In addition, it requires a enormous budget for completing the repair work of a river with its goal by the State or a river management agency, and it requires a long period of time to complete the construction work, and the flood control method is determined by the characteristics of the river basin, and thus, it is necessary to have long experience, and it is possible to find the method suitable for such nature of the river in light of the nature and nature of the river basin as well as its existing level of natural and technological development (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do138, etc.).

According to the above facts, since the bank near the flood control point of this case was at least 1m lower than the planned flood control level, the manager of the long-term river has a duty of care to prepare against floods by raising the bank above the planned flood level. However, as long as the long-term bank improvement project commenced from June 2003 was delayed for more than six years through a compensation consultation, it shall be delayed for more than six years, and eventually, since the river water inundations from the bank near the flood control point of this case, which is the non-construction section, around July 15, 2009, the flood control of this case shall be deemed to have occurred due to the management defect of the long-term river.

C. Determination as to the defendants' liability

Defendant Jeollabuk-do is the managing authority of the long-term river which is a local river pursuant to Article 8(2) of the River Act. Article 28(1) of the River Act provides, “The Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs may execute any river work on behalf of the Mayor/Do Governor, if deemed necessary.” In this case, instead of changing the managing authority by proxy of the above construction work, the superior administrative authority vicariously executes part of the management authority’s authority. As such, even if Defendant Jeollabuk-do vicariously performed the long-term bank construction work pursuant to the above provision in this case, Defendant Jeollabuk-do does not change the status of the managing authority of the long-term river, and thus, Defendant Jeollabuk-do is responsible as a river manager pursuant to Article

In addition, as Defendant Republic of Korea actually takes charge of construction of a long-term river, it is not only the owner and manager of the long-term river, but also the responsibility for damages, Article 60(1) of the River Act provides that “The Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs executes river works on behalf of the National Treasury pursuant to Article 28 of the River Act.” Thus, Defendant Republic of Korea shall be liable for damages even as the person who bears the cost of the long-term bank works pursuant to Article 6(1) of the State Compensation Act

(d) Whether it is an act of God natural disaster;

The defendants asserts that the damage of this case is a natural disaster which is force majeure because it was concentrated within a short time, and therefore, the defendants are not liable to compensate for the damage.

As seen earlier, the Defendant’s friendship from July 14, 200 to 02:00 of the same month was issued from July 15, 2009 to July 15, 160:00 meters. However, according to each of the statements in Gap’s evidence 10 to 10, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s assertion that it was difficult to predicting the above degree of a natural disaster by concentrating that the Defendant’s stressed the weather conditions at the front city, which is a neighboring city, where the flood disaster in this case occurred, exceeds 100mm a day from July 2001 to 2010, and that there was a day on which the rainfall of 249.5mm was recorded. Thus, it is difficult to view that the rain in the flood area in this case was a strong amount beyond predictability.

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendants are liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by each of the instant flood damages to each of the Plaintiff.

2. Scope of liability for damages

(a) Property damage;

(1) Damages

In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including each number), the damage to the plaintiff's property caused by the flood of this case can be acknowledged as constituting a total of 54,914,900 as shown in the damage list as shown in the annexed sheet.

(2) Limitation of liability

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 fault of the perpetrator, it is reasonable to limit the scope of compensation for the tortfeasor to the remaining part which remains after deducting the part which is deemed to have contributed to the natural ability from the perspective of fair burden of damages (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da734 delivered on June 27, 2003).

As seen earlier, in light of the fact that a large number of damage was inflicted on the North Korean territory of the Republic of Korea at the time of the flood disaster in this case, the flood damage in this case is deemed to have been caused by a combination of natural history, which is a flood caused by a concentrated rain, and the defect in the construction and management of the bank in this case. Therefore, the Defendants’ liability ratio should be limited to 30% of the Plaintiff’s damages in consideration of such circumstance.

Therefore, property damage to be compensated by the Defendants is 16,474,470 won (=54,914,900 won x 30%).

(b) consolation money;

In this case, it can be sufficiently recognized in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff suffered from mental damage, which can not be compensated only by the compensation for property damage, due to the damage of the container, etc. living in the plaintiff. Thus, the defendants are obligated to do so in monetaryly. The amount shall be set at KRW 5,00,000 in consideration of various circumstances indicated in the arguments in this case, such as the cause and circumstance of the occurrence of the flood damage in this case, the degree and degree of the defendants' negligence, the degree of contribution, and the details of the plaintiff'

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendants are liable to pay to each plaintiff 21,474,470 won (property damage 16,474,470 won + consolation money 5,00,000 won) and to pay damages for delay at each rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from July 15, 2009 to March 8, 201, which is the date of the ruling of this case where it is deemed reasonable that the defendants dispute about the existence and scope of the duty of performance, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claims against the defendants are accepted within the scope of the above recognition, with merit, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit.

[Attachment List of Damage]

Judges Kim Jong-soo