2010 Single 55128 Claims

○ Damage Insurance Co., Ltd.

서울 강남구 ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒

송달장소 창원시 마산합포구 ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒

Representative Director ○ Kim

Attorney Seo Jong-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Korea

Changwon-si District Public Prosecutor's Office in Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu

(Jurisdiction: Busan National Land Management Office)

Busan Dong-dong 2, 296 Busan Local Land Management Office Plan;

Representative Lee Jae-Nam

May 9, 2012

August 22, 2012

1. From November 12, 2010 to August 22, 2012, the Defendant: (a) KRW 20,887,838 to the Plaintiff and its related costs.

interest rate of 5% per annum and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

(n)

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 3/4 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and 1/4 by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 83,51,352 won with 5% interest per annum from November 12, 2010 to the date of this judgment, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the above company with respect to the ○○ Car owned by ***** (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff vehicle”) and the Defendant is the subject of construction, maintenance, and management of national highways No. 3.

B. On July 27, 2010, 03:10, while under the influence of alcohol, 0.137% of blood alcohol concentration, ○○ was driven by the Plaintiff’s vehicle at a speed of 108 km, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driven at the speed of 108 km, and was driven at the port of Samcheon-si, Samcheon-si, in accordance with two-lanes of the two-lanes of the national highway 3 (hereinafter “instant accident”) and was driven at the port of Samcheon-si, Ycheon-si, Samcheon-si, Samcheon-si, Yan-si, and came to a point of approximately 200 meters of driving due to driving due to drinking and drinking driving, the accident occurred in the middle of the instant accident (hereinafter “instant accident”). The specific form of the instant accident is stated in the attached Form.

다. 이 사건 사고로 원고 차량의 동승자 탁○○가 원고 차량에서 튕겨져 나가 두부손상 등으로 현장에서 사망하였고, 다른 동승자 김○○, 노○○이 부상을 입었다.

D. By November 11, 2010, the Plaintiff paid KRW 188,00,00,000 to the bereaved family members of ○○○○ and KRW 9,318,380 to Kim○, and paid KRW 11,560,00 (total KRW 208,878,380; hereinafter “instant insurance proceeds”) to the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

마. 이 사건 사고 당시 이 사건 도로에는 중앙분리대 설치공사가 진행 중이었는데, 이 사건 사고 지점에는 가드레일 고정을 위한 지주대가 설치되어 있었고, 당시 설치 중이던 중앙분리대용 가드레일은 별도의 단부처리가 되어 있지 않은 상태로 끝부분이 뾰족하게 노출되어 있었다. 한편 원고 차량이 진행하여 왔던 장송신호대 근처에서 이 사건 사고 지점까지 약 200m 구간에는 공사 중 안내표지판, 차량우회 표지판, 요철주의 표지판 등의 표지판이 있었고, 점멸식 데리네이터가 부착된 PE드럼이 차로 양쪽에 일정한 간격으로 설치되어 차량들의 진로를 유도하고 있었으며, 가로등과 같은 조명장치는 설치되어 있지 않았다.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 9, evidence 11, Eul evidence 2, 3, 5, and 6 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The defendant did not install safety signs, light lights, and safety guidance lights on the road of this case, and did not install shock absorption facilities on the part of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit.

B. Defendant’s assertion

At the time of the instant accident, the Defendant installed the direction board and the high volatiles and the PEdrums, etc. on which the direction board and the high volatiles are attached at regular intervals. As in the point where the instant accident occurred, it is difficult to install the shock absorption facilities at the central separation zone due to structural characteristics and installation costs, etc., if the central separation zone is in progress, such as the point where the instant accident occurred, and thus, there is no problem in ordinary safety even if the shocking facilities were not installed. The instant accident only occurred by the negligence of the Gangwon○○, such as driving at the speed exceeding 40 km speed under the influence of alcohol and speed exceeding 108 km speed per hour, and thus, it cannot be said that there was a defect in the construction and management of the instant accident or the circumstance where the shock absorption facilities are not installed had an impact on the occurrence of the instant accident or the expansion of damage.

3. Determination

(a) A claim for damages;

1) Issues

The main issue of the instant case is whether the Defendant’s fault that did not install a shock absorption facility at the central separation zone of the location of the instant accident caused the occurrence of the instant accident or the expansion of damages therefrom, and the following points are examined. (The Plaintiff asserts that there was negligence that the Defendant did not install a safety sign, light light, and safety guidance light, but it can be acknowledged that the Defendant installed a safety sign, a PE forum, etc. with the PES, etc. on which the PES is attached, as seen in the basic facts. As such, the Plaintiff’s assertion in this regard is without merit).

2) Legal principles and relevant regulations

The construction and management defects of a road, which is a structure, shall be specifically determined according to social norms by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, including the location of the road, road structure, traffic volume, and traffic conditions in the event of an accident, including the original purpose of use (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da29287, 29294, Mar. 13, 2008). If safety standards exist for the construction and management of a road, which are stipulated in statutes or internal rules of an administrative agency, such safety standards may serve as one basis for determining whether the construction and management defects of a structure are defective (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da23455, Nov. 9, 206).

On the other hand, Article 38 of the Regulations on the Structure and Standards of Roads, which are the Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, which set the minimum standards for the structure and maintenance of road facilities and for the safety inspection and maintenance of roads under the provisions of Article 37 of the Road Act, provides that "if it is deemed necessary for the prevention of traffic accidents, it shall install road safety facilities, such as emergency exit facilities, shock fences, lighting facilities, road blurging facilities, road blurging facilities, safety facilities in an open area, pedestrian crossing (including underground crosswalks)." Accordingly, the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs’s guidelines for the installation and management of road safety facilities, which are enacted, shall be divided into three separate directions for the installation and management of 3-lane facilities, such as installation of 3-lane facilities, 3-lane facilities in high risk of collision and absorption of vehicles, such as installation of turgical absorption facilities, 3-lane facilities, installation of turgical absorption facilities, etc.

3) Determination

6) In light of the above legal principles and relevant regulations as seen earlier, the point of the accident in this case was in progress with the central separation zone construction. The main part of the central separation zone construction, which was installed, was exposed to the form of vehicle without any separate handling, and ② The guidelines for installation and management of road safety facilities provide that shock facilities shall be installed in the click fence. While the existing straight-line lane was changed to a click line construction, it was not installed at the point of the accident in this case at the time of the accident, it was difficult for the Defendant to view the installation of the click line as part of the installation of the road in this case without any installation of lighting equipment such as street lamps at the point of the accident in this case. However, it was difficult to view the installation of the click line to have been installed at the point of the accident in this case as part of the installation of the road in this case, and it was difficult for the Defendant to view the installation of the click method as the installation of the road in this case without any danger of traffic absorption.

○ 나아가 위 기초사실과 앞서 든 증거들에 의하면, ① 이 사건 사고로 원고 차량은 전면부가 심하게 파손된 사실, ② 가드레일 단부와 충돌 당시의 충격으로 차량이 회전하면서 재차 가드레일과 충돌한 사실, ③ 그로 인하여 탁○○는 원고 차량에서 튕겨져 나와 현장에서 사망하기까지 한 사실 등을 인정할 수 있는바, 위와 같은 도로의 설치․관리상의 하자는 이 사건 사고의 발생 또는 손해의 확대에 기여하였다고 봄이 상당하다.

4) Sub-determination

Thus, the accident of this case is deemed to have occurred concurrently with the defect in the construction and management of the road of the defendant. Thus, the defendant is obliged to pay the indemnity amount to the plaintiff who acquired the right to claim damages against the defendant, such as the bereaved family, etc., by paying the insurance money of this case by subrogation.

B. Limitation on the right to claim damages

However, the main reason for the occurrence of the instant accident is to limit the Defendant’s share of liability to 10% in consideration of all the circumstances, such as driving of the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the speed of 108 km under the influence of alcohol content 0.137%, and the road conditions at the time of the instant accident and the details of the defect in the construction and management.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 20,887,838 won (208,878,380 won x 10%) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from November 12, 2010 to August 22, 2012, which is the date of the final payment of the insurance proceeds of this case, 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 claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Young-gu