1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The reasoning for this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the pertinent part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance (Article 2-A(a) is the same as that of the relevant part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Therefore, this part is cited by the main sentence of

B. (i) Defect in the construction and management of public structures under Article 5(1) of the State Compensation Act refers to the state in which the public structures are not in a state of safety ordinarily required for the public purpose.

In addition, the above safety should be determined on the basis of whether the installer or manager of a public structure has fulfilled his/her duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the danger of the public structure. Moreover, financial and material constraints of the installer or manager should also be considered.

Therefore, it cannot be concluded that there is a defect in the construction and management of a road or signal apparatus, which is a public structure, because it does not have a high level of safety to the extent that it maintains a perfect state in its construction and management, and it is sufficient to establish a relative safety with expectation of a method of use in a common and orderly manner.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da9158 Decided August 23, 2002, and Supreme Court Decision 2013Da208074 Decided October 24, 2013, etc.). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff immediately before the instant accident occurred was a green signal at the time of entering the Intersection where the instant vehicle was the location where the instant accident occurred, with only some of the descriptions of Nos. 6 and 7 as to the instant case, and the images of No. 2 as to the evidence No. 2.