The meaning of "public structures" under Article 5 of the State Compensation Act;

The public structures stipulated in Article 5 of the State Compensation Act refer to fluids or physical facilities, regardless of whether they are co-owned or privately-owned, which are granted to a specific public purpose by an administrative body. Thus, even if the accident occurred due to the death of the non-party due to falling rocks away from the rock walls on the side of the road, which was actually provided for the passage of the military, the road at the site of the accident cannot be deemed as public structures unless the route approval or the commencement of the public use was made by the Defendant

Article 5 of the State Compensation Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other plaintiffs, Counsel for the defendant-appellant Kim Sang-sung

Mayang-gun, Attorney Park Jong-tae, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 79Na3473 delivered on September 25, 1980

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

The part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The costs of an appeal concerning the dismissal of an appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. First, we examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant's attorney.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, since the accident points of this case are the only passage of the residents of the Y-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-do adjacent to the two sub-party 1, the court below held that, although the site was actually connected to the Gun roads and it was offered for the use of the general public, and that the road packing promotion committee composed of residents from June 8, 1978 to July 7 of the same year was completed with the subsidies of 3 million won from the Gun, and that there was no 7 million won construction cost for the Gun-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-owned road construction work, it was hard to manage the Gun-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-owned road directly by the 5th court below because the 5th court below's Do-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-owned road construction work was the main administrative structure of this case.

2. The plaintiff's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

The Plaintiff’s legal representative asserts that the court below’s disposition recognizing negligence was illegal even though there was no negligence against the deceased Nonparty 2 on the premise that the Defendant Gun was liable for damages caused by tort. However, as seen above, insofar as the establishment of tort cannot be acknowledged against the Defendant Gun, it is without any need for further examination.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the appeal by the defendant is well-grounded, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed, and the above part of the case is remanded to the court below. The appeal by the plaintiff is dismissed as it is without merit. The costs of appeal as to the dismissed part are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)