Plaintiff 1 and 96 others (Law Firm Squa, Attorneys Seo Jong-woo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Ansan-si and 1 (Attorney Lee Won-gu et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

July 13, 2004

1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The defendants jointly and severally pay to the plaintiffs 5% interest per annum from the day following the service of a copy of the complaint of this case to May 31, 2003 and 20% interest per annum from June 1, 2003 to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or are acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 6 through 13, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 8 through 11, and 13 through 18 (including paper numbers) and the whole purport of the arguments as a result of the on-site inspection conducted by this court.

(1) From the shores from Samsung C&M on the shores, Samsungcheon started to flow into the southwest and flows into the southwest side in accordance with the Seoul T&M and Annyang Park, and flow from the downstream to the west, and flow into the Hanyang River, is a local class 2 river, and the lower slope is higher than the upper region of the Annyang River, and the high-level mountainous district, such as Annsansan and Samsungsan, is distributed in the upper region. The Defendant Gyeonggi-do has the management of Samsungcheon pursuant to Article 12 of the River Act. The Defendant Gyeonggi-do entrusted the management of Samsungcheon to the Defendant Ansan-si under the Gyeonggi-do Ordinance on the Entrustment of Administrative Affairs.

(2) Samsung C&T was installed at the lower direction of about 50 meters immediately before the trithth of Samsungcheon and the lower direction of 50 meters. The said three bridges were installed within 45.3 meters. Of the three bridges, Samsung Seven was completed on December 28, 199, and a bridge form (RC) was built on December 28, 199, and the height of the upper end of the bridge was 25.86 meters, and the traffic volume was designed at 25.17 meters per the first direction, and the traffic volume was reduced by a neighboring bridge. Meanwhile, even if considering that the height of Samsung Seven and railway was reduced by a neighboring bridge, the traffic volume was from 140.83 meters per the beginning to 140.83 meters, the height of Samsung T&T from the lower end of 270cm to 370cm, the height of Samsung T&T from the lower end of 230cm to 370cm from the upper end of 270cm to the upper end of 370cm.7 meters from the upper end of Samsung.

(3) However, as of July 14, 2001 and 15, there was a heavy rain in Ansan-si, and in particular, as between July 15, 2001 and July 15, 2001, about 94.5 meters in Samsungcheon-si, Annyang-si, and 258 households may be flooded, according to the observation data of Suwon-si, which led to a heavy rain in 150 times, and if the flood amount of Samsungcheon-si, which occurred therefrom, is re-integrated, it reaches 150 cubic meters in the first place.

(4) As such, the number of rainwater inflows into Samsungcheon has rapidly increased due to the concentration of rainwaters in the short time, and soil and sand have been flown away from the mountain upstream of Samsungcheon, etc. At the same time, trees and earth and sand have been destroyed and flowed. In the upstream of Samsung Heavy and upper stream, from the river basin of Samsung Heavy and upper stream, the water drops into the roads and the roads have been destroyed, and various collecting devices, garbage, etc. used in the housing, commercial areas, etc. around Samsungcheon and its neighboring areas used in the rainwater into Samsungcheon and Samsungcheon. As seen above, the oil oil that left the rainwater has decreased the inflow capacity of Samsung 7 through preventing the flow of rainwater from flowing water into Samsung 7 intersection, and the water flow has not been smoothly flowed into Samsungcheon and the water flow has broken out at the same time to the outside of Samsung River, and the flood accident occurred in the vicinity of Samsung River (hereinafter “the flood accident”).

(5) Meanwhile, according to the river facility standards established by the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, local second-class rivers have the planned river size of 50-year intervals. The planned flood volume of less than 200-meters per second-class river is 0.6 meters or more. Accordingly, the Defendant, around December 1991, formulated a basic plan for river maintenance of the Anyang River System with the planned flood volume of 104 metres per initial 104 metres, and completed the improvement of Samsungcheon. According to the said plan, the location of the installation of Samsung 7-class river was planned to be 22 meters in the planned river size of 50-year intervals, the planned flood volume of 104 meters per initial 20-meter, and the planned flood level of 25.26 meters in the plan was newly established by the National River Maintenance and Transportation, and the existing plan was newly established by the National River Maintenance and Transportation Deliberation Committee for 190-200 meters in the planned river area of 10-year 25.26 meters in the plan.

(6) During the flood accident of this case, the wastes collected as part of the residential environment improvement project in Samsung Heavy Heavy and upstream areas, and various illegal facilities (e.g., ordinary, tent, etc.) of the merchants in Ansan-do, and dust-proof network and soundproof-proof fences used at the construction site near Samsungcheon-si, which was being reconstructed with the approval of the Defendant Ansan-si. Furthermore, the fences of the Seoul National University Arboretums’s arboretum were built of a wire-net structure at the time of the flood accident of this case, although the volume of water was increased at the time of the flood accident of this case, it was destroyed by the flood accident of this case, and was partially destroyed due to the flood accident of this case.

(7) Meanwhile, on May 4, 2001, the Defendant Ansan-si entered into a contract with the Yong-do Construction Co., Ltd. on the entrustment of the collection, transportation, and disposal of construction waste generated in Samsungcheon-do Residential Environment Improvement Project, and had the said company collect and transport waste from 4,240 cubic meters during the period from May 7, 2001 to July 9, 2001. Around July 12, 2001, the transfer of the flood accident of this case, 32 removal of 8 tents located in Ansan-do and remove the illegal commercial activities conducted in Samsungcheon-do from time to time.

2. Assertion and determination

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs asserted that the defendants did not properly establish Samsung 7 education too low and neglected the management of Samsungcheon, and that the removal of the river from the river area did not increase in accordance with the new plan for river maintenance, and that the plaintiffs caused property and mental damage due to the flood accident in this case, they are held liable for damages under Article 5 of the State Compensation Act in Ansan-si, and the defendant Gyeonggi-do is held liable for damages as a person to bear the burden under Article 6 of the State Compensation Act or Article 6 of the State Compensation Act in the case of the defendant

B. Whether there was a defect in the construction of Samsung7 bridge

Article 5(1) of the State Compensation Act provides that any defect in the construction or management of a public structure is in a state of absence of ordinary safety according to its use. Thus, it cannot be said that there is a defect in the construction or management of a public structure only with no complete state of the public structure and with some defect in its function. In determining whether the construction or management of a public structure is in conformity with the above safety, it shall be based on whether the installer or manager fulfilled the duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required in proportion to the danger of the public structure in light of social norms (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da56822, Jul. 27, 2001). In particular, since a river as a natural public structure has no choice about whether it is originally installed in its original state of flood, there is no possibility that it can be removed by a simple method, and it is difficult for the river management agency to find out the nature of a river, such as the nature and nature of a river that requires a long-term change in its use, such as a flood-related plan to its effect.

As to the fact that there is a defect installed too low in Samsung 7, first of all, the difference is 0.6 meters in the planned flood level at the point where Samsung 7 is installed, and the difference is 25.86 meters in the height of the upper end. As seen earlier, the difference is 0.6 meters in light of the records of the flood accident at the time of the flood accident in this case, which is 150 cubic meters in the planned flood volume exceeding 104 metres per the first 104 metres in the planned flood volume, barring any special circumstances, Samsung 7 is ordinarily safe, and it cannot be concluded that the safety of Samsung 7 does not exist solely on the ground that the planned flood level at the point where Samsung 7 is less than another bridge or that the flood damage was caused by the flood accident in this case. Therefore, this part of the assertion is groundless.

In addition, the plaintiffs asserted that Samsung 7 roads were installed in the sn beam beam line rather than Samsung 104 cubic meters from the RC snife, and that the snife PC was installed together with the snife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife kn

The plaintiffs asserted that Samsung 7 bridge did not have a defect that reduce the water flow because the water flow area actually fell more than 35.36 square meters when considering obstacles, such as a bridge and sewage pipe, and that there is a defect that reduces the water flow due to a flood. This part of the plaintiffs asserted that the water flow is less than 104 square meters for the first time, which is the planned flood volume, as well as there is no assertion and proof that the water flow is less than 104 square meters, due to the reduction of the water flow area due to the above obstacles. Therefore, it is insufficient to conclude that Samsung 7 bridge was not equipped with safety ordinarily due to the above circumstances, and even if the water flow area decreased as a result of the flood flow of this case, unless there are special circumstances such as the flood volume itself was mistakenly calculated, it cannot be viewed as a defect in the installation of Samsung 7 bridge separately from the management issue of Samsung River. This part of the allegation is without merit.

Furthermore, the Plaintiffs asserted that the lower end of Samsungcheon was higher than 0.3m or 0.4m higher than the time of design at the time of the flood accident in this case, and thus, in fact, it does not meet the above criteria. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the lower end of the flood accident in this case was not after the flood accident in this case, but at the time of the flood accident, it was high as above. Thus, this part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is groundless.

Finally, the plaintiffs asserts that the design without considering this point is a design defect because the lower width in the vicinity of Samsung 7 intersections is narrow compared to the wide width, and therefore the lower width in the vicinity of the railroad is so narrow that there is a rise in water level due to the occurrence of bottles. This part of the allegation is without merit, since there is no evidence to support the fact that the lower width is reduced as seen earlier, but there is a phenomenon of bottles to the extent that the design change is urgently required.

(c) Whether defects are found by neglecting the management of river environs; and

The Plaintiffs asserted that there was negligence in management, which did not so even have been prevented from removing, removing, or controlling various wastes around Samsungcheon, facilities related to illegal acts installed by merchants in Samsungcheon-do, and facilities related to large-scale apartment construction site, dust-proof networks used in large-scale apartment construction site, soundproof pents, etc. In determining whether the construction and manager of public structures fulfilled his/her duty to take protective measures, in the event that there is no possibility of expectation and avoidance of damage caused by any defect in the function of public structures in time and place from an objective perspective, in other words, if it is proved that the defect in public structures is below the situation where the construction and management of public structures cannot affect the construction and management of the public structures (see the above Decision 200Da56822, supra).

In this case, the above facilities are left unattended in Samsungcheon, and the fact that it was caused by Samsung 7 T&S disturbance is as seen earlier, but the public officials belonging to the Defendants frequently collected waste and illegal facilities prior to the flood accident of this case, and the fact that a large amount of rain at the time of the flood accident of this case occurred, and as seen above, there were various floating materials outside the above goods at the time of the flood accident of this case. Thus, in light of the fact that public officials belonging to the Defendants made efforts to remove waste and illegal facilities as such and control illegal commercial activity facilities, and that there was no choice but to occur various floating materials in light of the scale of friendship, it is insufficient to conclude that the above waste and illegal facilities were discharged to Samsung 7 through some of Samsungcheon, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this part of the claim.

In addition, the plaintiffs asserts that the defendants neglected the installation of the Seoul Alternative Arboretums by neglecting it without permission, so that water is confined as a dam at a time, and that the water is enlarged by an ombudsman. In addition, the plaintiffs asserted that the statement of No. 12 is not sufficient to recognize the fact that the installation of the Seoul Alternative Arboretums Arboretums is required to obtain permission for occupancy and use of rivers, but it is not sufficient to recognize the fact that the water is stored as a dam, such as a dam, and that the water was collapsed at the same time as the dam, even if it was caused by the collapse of the steel businesses, the statement of No. 8-1 to No. 8 of the evidence No. 8 of this part is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to prove it otherwise. This part of the assertion is groundless.

(d) Whether there is any defect due to lack of time to remove the river from the river; and

The Plaintiffs asserted that there was a defect in which the Defendants did not raise an accusation against the bank in accordance with the new river maintenance plan of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation in 1999. However, as seen earlier, since the aforementioned new river maintenance plan was not commenced at the time of the flood accident and such plan was not finalized, it cannot be said that the existing plan was revised urgently, and that there is no proof that the existing plan should be corrected, and therefore, this part of the assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendants are not liable to compensate the plaintiffs for the defects in the establishment and management of Samsungcheon. Therefore, the defendant Gyeonggi-do's liability as the burden of expenses is not to be examined further. Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim against the defendants is dismissed for each reason, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

【Omission of List of Claim Amount】

Judges Han Chang-ho (Presiding Judge)