In the case of indicating the height of the school and the actual defects in the preservation and management of the school;

As the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City, who is the owner or occupant of the teaching school, shall always be consistent with the actual height and indication, and if the defendant has displayed a higher height than the actual height of the teaching school, it shall be limited to the case where there is a defect in the preservation and management of the teaching school.

Article 5 of the State Compensation Act, Article 758 of the Civil Act

Korea Fire & Marine Insurance Corporation, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Park Jae-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant in Seoul Special Metropolitan City

Seoul High Court Decision 80Na2311 delivered on January 24, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 of the defendant's attorney are also examined.

1. In light of the records, the court below was just in finding that the damage amount caused by the accident of this case and the defendant expressed a 5-meter height of the land of this case at the time of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, and there was no error of failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or finding facts without evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit.

2. Display height on the road is meaningful and it is naturally expected that the person acts in accordance with the marking as a matter of course in passing through the road. The owner and possessor of the road must always coincide with the actual height. If the defendant displayed a higher height than the actual height of the road, this does not constitute a defect in the preservation and management of the road. According to the records, it is clear that the accident of this case occurred due to the above defect. Thus, the court below's position that the court below recognized that the defendant is liable to compensate for damages caused by the defect is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the grounds for recognizing liability for tort, such as the theory of lawsuit.

3. In light of the records, even considering the various circumstances asserted by the Defendant’s legal representative, the lower court’s ratio of comparative negligence is contrary to the principle of equity and thus is extremely unfair. The arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Jong-woo (Presiding Justice)