[1] The meaning of "defect in the construction or management of public structures" under Article 5 (1) of the State Compensation Act and the criteria for its determination

[2] In a case where a traffic accident occurred on the crosswalk where a pedestrian signal apparatus is broken, the case holding that a local government's liability for damages is recognized on the ground that the above pedestrian signal apparatus, which was cut off with a wheel of red lights, was a control defect that does not have ordinary safety according to its purpose

[1] Article 5 (1) of the State Compensation Act / [2] Articles 5 (1) and 6 (1) of the State Compensation Act, Article 3 (1) of the Road Traffic Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 99Da54004 delivered on February 25, 2000 (Gong2000Sang, 830) Supreme Court Decision 99Da5498 delivered on April 25, 200 (Gong2000Sang, 1264) Supreme Court Decision 2000Da5682 delivered on July 27, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 1937) Supreme Court Decision 2005Da65678 delivered on September 21, 2007 (Gong2007Ha, 1644)

National Bus Transport Business Federation (Attorney Choi Jin-jin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Cheongju-si (Law Office of the General Law Office, Attorney Jeong Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Cheongju District Court Decision 2005Na1125 decided July 28, 2005

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The defects in the construction or management of a public structure under Article 5 (1) of the State Compensation Act refer to the state in which the public structure is not equipped with safety ordinarily required for its use. However, the defects in the construction or management of the public structure can not be considered as defects in the construction or management of the public structure on the sole basis of any defects in its function without the complete state of the public structure. In determining whether the construction or management of the public structure has satisfied the above safety requirements, comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as the use of the public structure, the status of the site, the situation of its use, etc., and whether the construction or management has fulfilled the duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the danger of the public structure. If, from an objective point of view, there is no possibility and possibility of a loss occurrence due to the defects in the construction or management of the public structure, in other words, if it is proved that the defects in the public structure are under circumstances where the construction or management of the public structure could not affect the construction or management of the public structure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da274027.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the location of the accident in this case is a place where the traffic of ordinary vehicles and general public is high, as well as a wide area of the third-lane road, and where the crosswalk and signal apparatus are not installed, there is a high risk of traffic accidents due to unauthorized crossing, etc. In the location of the accident in this case, the road in this case is deemed to have a signal for the vehicle at the intersection, and there is a crosswalk where the pedestrian signal apparatus is installed after the intersection passes. The driver passing through the intersection is trust that the pedestrian signal apparatus installed on the crosswalk is a stop signal if the signal apparatus is travelling, and it is not possible to reduce or stop the above traffic signal apparatus before the crosswalk, so it cannot be seen that there is a serious danger of traffic accidents due to the road apparatus, such as pedestrian signal apparatus, and it cannot be seen that there is no objective reason to view that there is a defect in the road in this case, such as the safety signal apparatus of the pedestrian and the signal apparatus of the pedestrian, even if there is no reason to view it as an accident that there is no reason to view that the safety signal apparatus of the road.

Therefore, the appeal is 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 on the bench.

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)