The case recognizing liability for damages of the competent local government, in case where the players on the street have lost their self-help power due to electric power failure or electric shock while the stability of street lamps was flooded due to a centralized rain and the leakage occurred but did not take any measures to block the leakage;

The case holding that the competent district is liable for damages suffered by the deceased, their parents and siblings due to defects in the installation and management of street lamps, etc., as a vicarious joint and several liability manager, under Article 6 of the State Compensation Act, in case where the players who had been on the way lost their self-help power by electric power failure or reduction, and the street lamps themselves can be recognized to be defective in the stability that should have been normally equipped, and the competent district is the employer of the public officials under his jurisdiction, and the management agency of the street lamps, etc., which is the road and its appurtenances, is the road and its appurtenances, pursuant to Article 756 of the Civil Act, and Article 5 (1) of the State Compensation Act as the management agency of the street lamps, etc., which is the road and its appurtenances, under Article 6 of the State Compensation Act.

[1] Articles 750 and 756 of the Civil Act, Articles 5(1) and 6 of the State Compensation Act, Article 95(2) of the Local Autonomy Act, Article 44 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Management of Major Facilities such as Road, etc.

Plaintiff 1 and nine others (Law Firm Pacific, Attorneys Nacheon-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and one other (Seocho Law Firm, Attorneys Park Sang-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2002Na49240 delivered on June 4, 2003

1. The Defendants shall pay to each of the Plaintiffs 1 184,678,160 won, gold 182,128,160 won to Plaintiff 2, gold 95,88,764 won to Plaintiff 5, gold 93,338,764 won to Plaintiff 6, gold 80,310 won to Plaintiff 8, gold 78,946,310 won to Plaintiff 9, gold 78,396,310 won to Plaintiff 3, 4, 7, and 10 respectively, and 3,00,000 won to Plaintiff 3,00,000 won per annum from July 15, 2001 to July 23, 2002; and 25% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' respective remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit are five minutes and one is the plaintiffs' and the remaining defendants' each.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The Defendants jointly and severally pay to Plaintiff 1 22,261,659 won, gold 219,261,659 won, gold 109,635,681 won, gold 106,635,681 won to Plaintiff 5, gold 96,635,681 won to Plaintiff 6, gold 96,723,527 won to Plaintiff 8, gold 93,723,527 won to Plaintiff 9, gold 5,00 won to Plaintiff 3, 4, 7, and 10 respectively, and 5,00,000 won from July 15, 201 to the date of service of the instant claim and the date of modification of the cause of claim, and 25% amount per annum from the next day to the date of completion.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Facts of recognition

(1) From around 02:40 on July 15, 2001 to around 04:30 on the same day, Nonparty 1, Nonparty 2, and Nonparty 3 got away from the front of the promotion apartment road located in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, Seoul, with a concentration of the road located in the Seoul area to up to 130 centimeters per the news reporting standard due to the concentration of the road, as seen later, at the time, at the same time, they turned back to the front of the promotion apartment (number 14-2, measuring instruments number 510216, hereinafter referred to as “instant street, etc.”) due to the electric shock of the street, etc. on the front of the promotion apartment (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”).

(2) The Seocho-ro (hereinafter referred to as the "Road of this case") in which the street of this case is located is the Special Metropolitan City (City/Do) owned by the Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City"), the width of which is not less than 20 meters, and the expenses for the installation, improvement, repair, and maintenance of the road of this case and the street of this case, which are accessories to the road of this case, are borne by the Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City pursuant to the "Regulation on the Financial Obligations" between Seoul Special Metropolitan City and autonomous Gu. Article 95 (2) of the Local Autonomy Act and Article 44 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Management of Major Facilities such as Road of this case is delegated to the Defendant Seocho-gu

(3) Plaintiffs 1 and 2’s parents, Plaintiff 5 and Nonparty 4’s parents, Plaintiff 8 and Plaintiff 9 are the deceased Nonparty 3’s parents, Plaintiff 3 and Plaintiff 4’s siblings, Plaintiff 7’s deceased Nonparty 2’s deceased Nonparty 3’s siblings, Plaintiff 7’s deceased Nonparty 2 and Plaintiff 10, respectively.

(Evidence) Evidence No. 1-3, Evidence No. 2-1 through 5, Evidence No. 3-1, 2, Evidence No. 4, Evidence No. 5, Evidence No. 7, Evidence No. 8-70, and 71

(b) Markets:

위 인정 사실, 위에서 든 증거, 갑 제8호증의 2, 5, 12, 13, 17 내지 19, 20, 22, 23, 65, 79, 갑 제22호증, 갑 제23호증, 갑 제24호증의 1 내지 8의 각 기재 및 영상에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 이 사건 사고 당시 이 사건 가로등은 가로등 분전반에서 전원을 공급받고 있는 상태에서 가로등의 안정기는 입력 및 출력 전선 연결 부분 일부에서 전선의 도체가 노출되어 있고, 가로등의 외함은 보호접지가 연결되어 있지 않아 누전시 전기를 땅밑으로 흐르게 하지 못하여 감전의 위험이 있었고, 더욱이 이 사건 도로는 도로확장계획구간이어서 이 사건 사고 장소의 경우 굴착으로 인한 보도정비를 하면서 설치 당시에는 지상 60㎝에 있었던 이 사건 가로등의 안정기의 위치가 피고들이 스스로 주장하는 한국산업안전규격이라고 하는 지상 60㎝에도 미치지 못하였기 때문에 이 사건 사고 당시와 같은 정도의 집중호우가 아니더라도 안정기가 침수될 가능성이 있었던 사실, 위와 같은 상황으로 인하여 안정기가 침수되어 누전이 발생될 경우 효과적으로 전원을 차단하여 감전사고를 막을 수 없는 상태에 있었던 사실, 실제로 이 사건 사고 당시 이 사건 도로를 지나간 보행자들이 다리에 전기가 오르는 것을 느끼는 등 이 사건 가로등에 누전이 있었던 사실, 전기안전공사는 1999. 3차례 걸쳐 안전점검을 실시한 후, 이 사건 가로등이 누전상태에 있는데도 누전차단기가 설치되어 있지 않고 접지상태가 부적합하다는 이유로 부적합판정을 내리고 피고 서초구에 이를 통보하였고 피고 서초구 역시 서울시 소재 가로등의 약 80% 이상이 누전이 되고 있는 사실을 알고 있으면서도 예산상의 이유 등을 들어 누전원인을 근본적으로 차단하기 위한 조치를 취하지 않고 있었던 사실, 이 사건 도로는 1998. 여름 집중호우가 내린 때에도 침수되었던 지역인 사실, 가사 피고들의 주장처럼 이 사건 가로등에 누전차단기를 설치할 수 없는 예산상·기술상의 문제가 있어 당장 누전차단기는 설치할 수 없었다고 하더라도, 이 사건 도로가 언제나 보행자들의 통행이 빈번한 곳이고 이 사건 가로등이 전기안전공사로부터 위와 같이 수차례 부적합판정을 받은 상태여서 이 사건 가로등이 침수로 인하여 누전되는 경우 감전의 가능성이 있음을 충분히 예상할 수 있었고, 더구나 이 사건 사고 당일 가로등관리업체 대표이사인 소외 5가 피고 서초구 소속 가로등 담당공무원인 소외 6에게 이 사건 가로등 근처에 물이 가슴까지 차 있어 가로등 분전반의 차단기를 내릴 수 없다는 연락을 받았으므로 어느 때보다도 이 사건 가로등으로 인한 감전사고의 위험이 높다는 사실을 인식하고 있었을 피고 서초구로서는 이 사건 도로가 침수되는 즉시 경찰에 요청하여 바리케이트를 설치하는 등 적당한 방법으로 이 사건 도로 주변에 대한 주민의 통행을 제한하고 한국전력공사에 단전을 위한 요청을 하여 이 사건 가로등의 누전으로 인하여 발생할 수 있는 위험을 사전에 차단하는 등 가능한 한 최선의 안전조치를 취했어야 함에도 이와 관련한 아무런 조치를 취한 바 없었고, 이 사건 사고 후에 비로소 서초구청장이 2001. 7. 31.자로 한국전력공사사장에게 서초로 일대는 재해위험지구로 지정 고시된 지역임을 감안하여 많은 비가 내릴 경우 가로등의 분전함에 공급되는 전원이 차단될 수 있도록 조치하여 달라는 내용의 공문을 보낸 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 사실관계가 위와 같다면 피고 서초구 소속 공무원들은 이 사건 가로등의 관리에 주의를 게을리하였다고 할 것이고, 또 이 사건 가로등은 가로등 자체가 통상 갖추어야 할 안정성에 결함이 있는 것으로 인정할 수 있어, 피고 서초구는 소속 공무원들의 사용자로서 민법 제756조 에 기해 또한 이 사건 도로 및 그 부속물인 가로등의 관리청으로서 국가배상법 제5조 제1항 에 따라, 피고 서울시는 이 사건 가로등의 설치·관리에 관한 비용을 부담하는 자로서 국가배상법 제6조 에 따라, 부진정연대채무자로서 이 사건 가로등의 설치관리상의 하자로 인하여 위 망인들 및 그 부모·형제들인 원고들이 입은 손해를 배상할 책임이 있다고 할 것이다.

The defendant Seocho-gu planned to extend the roads from the road expansion project, but failed to implement the project due to the lack of budget execution from the defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government. The defendant Seocho-gu also failed to implement the project for the same reason. As long as the defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government did not provide the above budget, it is impossible to improve the street lamps of Seocho-gu, so the defendant is not responsible for the improvement of the street lamps of the defendant Seocho-gu.

However, Defendant Seocho-gu is obligated to maintain and manage street lamps and electric utility facilities so that vehicle drivers and pedestrians can safely walk, as the subject of the management affairs of the road of this case and the street lamps, which are attached thereto. Although Defendant Seocho-gu did not compile and approve the necessary budget, Defendant Seocho-gu cannot avoid the obligation of management of such street lamps solely on such circumstance. Thus, Defendant Seocho-gu’s above assertion is without merit.

C. Limitation on liability

As of July 14, 201, 200 to July 15, 2001, the Defendant’s natural history of this case from 23:00 to 05:00 per hour is 102 meters long, and the maximum strength of this case is 74.3 meters long, which is the current sewerage design standard (10-year frequency), and the strength of rainfall exceeding 62.2 meters long, among those of the above deceased, was benefiting from the maintenance of the road, and thus, it is difficult to view that the Defendants’ natural history of this case’s water supply from 10:0 to 100 to 15:0, and thus, it is difficult to view that the Defendants’ natural history of this case’s water supply of this case’s water supply could not be considered as a cause for the removal of the foregoing accident and expansion of the road’s water supply. However, it is difficult to consider that the Defendants’ natural history was 50% of the water supply of this case’s water supply and improvement of the road’s water supply system as well.

2. Scope of damages.

A. The deceased non-party 1

(1) Actual income

(A) Basic facts

(1) Gender for each gender: South Korean (one omitted from the date of birth).

Age at the time of an accident: 00 years and five months;

Name of rental: 45.15 years;

Residential area: Seoul, urban area;

(2) Directing business.

On May 26, 200, the deceased non-party 1 entered the △△△△△△ corporation as a graduate-in employee, and worked for one year and two months from July 15, 2001, which was at the time of the instant accident, as a store member at the Seoul Song-dong store.

(3) Age and maximum working age

The retirement age of employees working at △△△△△△△ Co., Ltd. is the date on which they reach 55 years of age, and the operation period of an ordinary part-time employee for urban work reaches 60 years of age every 22 days of age.

(4) Cost of living.

1/3 of revenues

(b) Mountain village: 338,594,096 won (gold 324,213,560 won + 14,380,536 won);

(1) The period from an accident to retirement age.

(1) Basic pay: The amount stated in attached Form 1;

(B) Sub-grade : 320,000 won

Category of duties to be caused: 100,000 won

C intent bonus: Money stated in attached Form bonus;

End : The amount calculated at the present price at the time of the accident in this case is KRW 486,320,341 as shown in the attached Form, and if the cost of living is deducted therefrom, the actual income during the above period shall be KRW 324,213,560 (486,320,341 x 2/3).

(2) Period between retirement age and maximum working age

From February 16, 2029 following the retirement day to February 15, 2034, the 22th day of each month, from February 16, 2029 to February 15, 2034, and the urban daily wage of an adult male in the first half-year in 2002 to 40,922, each month, 90,284 won (40,92 x 22), and 14,380,536 won (90,284 x 284 x 2905 x 2/307.05) after deducting living expenses).

(2) A daily retirement allowance;

(A) Basic facts

On May 26, 200, the deceased Nonparty 1 was allowed to enter △△△△△△△△, Inc. and to work until February 15, 2029 from the age of 55. However, due to the instant accident, he retired on July 15, 2001.

(b) Calculation of retirement allowances;

(1) Estimated total retirement allowances.

For each year of continuous service, 30 days' average wage for each year of continuous service (Provided, That for each year of continuous service, the number of days' wage for each year);

The annual average wage: 2,743,90 won (basic salary 2,323,90 x 320,000 x 320,000 x 3 months x 3 months x 100,000 x 3 months x 3 months x 1/3 months) equivalent to the amount obtained by dividing the estimated bonus to be paid within one year retroactively from the date of the ordinary retirement x 1,335,862 x 7,896,70 won [2,256, 200 x 350 x 2,20350 x 9,200 x 8,650 won (2,30,39,300 x 2,5039) x 1/670 x 12] of the estimated bonus for the month immediately preceding the date of the ordinary retirement x 1,35,862 won [30 x 1/740]

(b) Long-term continuous service year: The number of continuous service years from May 26, 200, which is the date of entry of the deceased non-party 1, to February 15, 2029, which is the scheduled date of retirement, is August 21, 2029, and the total number of continuous service years calculated on a daily basis is 28.7242 (28 + 12 + 21/365).

Financially disabled person: Monthly average wage ¡¿ (daily calculation) coefficient of total continuous service period =4,079,762 ¡¿ 28.72 = gold 117,187,89 won

(2) The calculation of retirement allowances in a day;

The above gold 117,187,89 won is calculated at the present price at the time of the instant accident in accordance with the Hofmanial Calculation Act, 49,254,073 won 117,187,89 won x 0.4203 [1/1/0 (1 +05 x 27.583)]. The retirement allowance for one-time retirement calculated by deducting the retirement allowance of 1,64,263 won already received is KRW 47,589,810.

(c) Funeral expenses: 3,000,000 won;

(Evidence)Evidences without dispute, Gap evidence 9 to 13, Gap evidence 15 to 17, and non-party 7's testimony

(4) Limitation of liability:

(A) Liability ratio of the Defendants: 85%

(b) mountain.

(1) Property losses of the deceased non-party 1: 328,256,320 won [386,183,906 won (amounting to 338,594,096 won in lost earnings + Amounting to 47,589,810 won in lost retirement allowances] x 0.85];

② Funeral expenses of Plaintiff 1: 2,50,000 won (3,000,000 won x 0.85)

(5) Consolation money

(A) The instant accident is obvious in light of the empirical rule that Plaintiffs 1, 2, and 3 and 4, who are not only the deceased Nonparty 1 but also their parents, suffered considerable mental pain, and thus, are obliged to do so in money.

(B) Reasons for consideration: the age, family relationship, the course and result of the instant case, and all other circumstances shown in the present argument.

(C) Decision amount: Net Non-Party 1 (gold 20,000,000)

Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 2 (each of 8,000,000)

Plaintiff 3 and Plaintiff 4 (each of 3,000,000 won)

(6) Trade unions; and

The deceased non-party 1’s total amount of damages KRW 348,256,320 (property damages + KRW 328,256,320 + KRW 20,000 + KRW 20,000) succeeded respectively to KRW 174,128,160 (gold KRW 348,256,320 x 1/2) according to statutory shares in inheritance.

(7) Sub-committee

The Defendants are obligated to pay 184,678,160 won for each of the Plaintiffs 1 (legally inherited KRW 174,128,160 + funeral expenses + KRW 2,550,000 + funeral expenses + KRW 8,000,000) for the Plaintiff 2, and KRW 182,128,160 for the Plaintiff 2 (legally inherited KRW 174,128,160 + KRW 8,00,000 for the inheritance + KRW 174,128,160), and KRW 3,00,000 for each of the Plaintiffs 3 and 4, and delay damages therefor.

B. The deceased non-party 2

(1) Actual income

(A) Basic facts

(1) Gender for each gender: Southern (the date of birth 2 omitted).

Age at the time of an accident: 9 months in west;

Name of rental: 47.97

Byung: Handcil

(2) Financial assessment of the base of living and the capability to operate.

The chain non-party 2 was a person who was enrolled in the military in the third grade of a university and completed the fourth grade course after returning to the military and completing the fourth grade course, and the plaintiff 5 degree, who was the plaintiff 5 degree with excellent academic achievements, is insufficient to back the plaintiff 2. Thus, the deceased non-party 2 should calculate the lost profits based on the income level of the beginning-time male workers after graduating from the university at least after graduating from the university (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da36116, Dec. 10, 1991).

(Evidence)Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 3-3, Gap evidence 9, and Gap evidence 18-20

(b) Sub-committee mountain: From March 1, 2002 after graduation from the university, for the period of 414 months from September 27, 2036, which became the maximum working age of the university, to September 27, 2036, the maximum working age of the university was at least 1,056,63 won per month, and the average annual special pay amount of KRW 43,241 (amount of KRW 518,903 x1/12), which is the sum of the monthly wage of the former-type workers whose career is less than one year, and which is the sum of KRW 1,09,874 won per month.

(3) Cost of living.

1/3 of revenues

(B) Mountain village: On March 1, 2002, after the deceased non-party 2 graduated from a university, the daily income is 172,561,798 won [1,09,874 won x 2/3 x 2/3 x 2/43.19-7.8534] if the daily income is calculated at the present price at the time of the instant accident in accordance with the Hofmanial Calculation Act after deducting the living expenses from the income that could have been earned from March 1, 2002 to the age of 60, which is the maximum working age).

(b) Funeral expenses: 3,000,000 won;

(3) Limitation of liability:

(A) Liability ratio of the Defendants: 85%

(b) mountain.

(1) The net non-party 2's property loss: 146,67,528 won (172, 561,798 won x 0.85)

② Funeral expenses of Plaintiff 5: 2,50,000 won (3,000,000 won x 0.85)

(4) Consolation money

(A) The instant accident is obvious in light of the empirical rule that Plaintiff 5, Nonparty 4, and Plaintiff 7, who is his parent, was suffering from considerable mental pain due to the instant accident, and thus, is obliged to do so in money.

(B) Reasons for consideration: the age, family relationship, the course and result of the instant case, and all other circumstances shown in the instant argument.

(C) Decision amount: Net Non-Party 2 (gold 20,000,000)

Plaintiff 5 and Nonparty 4 (each of 10,000,000)

Plaintiff 7 (Seoul High Court Decision 3,000,000)

(5) In the case of

The deceased non-party 2’s total amount of damages KRW 166,67,528 (property damages + KRW 146,67,528 + 20,00,000) succeeded to each of the 83,338,764 (gold KRW 166,67,528 + 1/2) by Plaintiff 5 and non-party 4 according to their statutory shares in inheritance.

(6) Sub-committee

The Defendants are obligated to pay 95,88,764 won (legally inherited KRW 83,338,764 + funeral expenses + KRW 2,550,000 + funeral expenses + KRW 10,000) to Plaintiff 6, KRW 93,338,764 (legally inherited portion + KRW 83,338,764 + KRW 10,000) to Plaintiff 7, and KRW 3,000,000, and delay damages therefrom.

C. The deceased non-party 3

(1) Actual income

(A) Basic facts

(1) Gender for each gender: Southern (3 omitted on the date of birth).

Age at the time of an accident: 5 months in the △△△;

Name of rental: 53.62 years;

Sick Station: dolusium

(2) Financial assessment of the base of living and the capability to operate.

The deceased non-party 3, who did not yet complete military service at the time of the instant accident, was admitted to the Army on March 29, 2001 and was temporarily closed from the time of the accident from June 29 to the time of the accident, did not have any income. The daily wage of an urban day is 40,922 won. The monthly average working day according to the empirical rule is 22 days, and the maximum working age is 60 years (the plaintiff 8 and the plaintiff 9 did not short of the plaintiff 8, whose academic achievements are excellent and whose early studies are 50 years). Accordingly, the deceased non-party 3, at least 20 years after graduation from the university, claimed that the military service period should be calculated on the basis of the daily working period of 20 years from the beginning of the university graduate x the time of 20 years from the date of the above evaluation 16 months from the date of completion of the first half year from the university. However, the Minister of National Defense does not have any other evidence to acknowledge that the period of 16 years from the above.

(3) Cost of living.

1/3 of revenues

(B) Mountain village: The actual income shall be gold 137,403,084 won [90,284 x 2/3 x 2/3 269.256-40.3231] if it is calculated at the present price at the time of the instant case after deducting the living expenses.

(b) Funeral expenses: 3,000,000 won;

(Evidence) contain no dispute, Gap evidence 9, Gap evidence 17, and Gap evidence 21

(3) Limitation of liability:

(A) Liability ratio of the Defendants: 85%

(b) mountain.

① The lost Nonparty 3’s property loss: 116,792,621 won (137,403,084 won x 0.85)

② Funeral expenses of Plaintiff 8: 2,50,000 won (3,000,000 won x 0.85)

(4) Consolation money

(A) The instant accident is obvious in light of the empirical rule that Plaintiff 8, Plaintiff 9, and Plaintiff 10, who are his parents, was suffering from considerable mental pain due to the instant accident, and thus, is obliged to do so in money.

(B) Reasons for consideration: the age, family relationship, the course and result of the instant case, and all other circumstances shown in the instant argument.

(C) Amount determined: Net Nonparty 3 (gold 20,000,000)

Plaintiff 8 and Plaintiff 9 (each of 10,000,000)

Plaintiff 10 (Seoul High Court 3,000,000)

(5) In the case of

The deceased non-party 3’s total amount of damages KRW 116,792,621 (property damage + KRW 116,792,621 + KRW 20,00,000) succeeded respectively to KRW 68,396,310 (gold KRW 136,792,621 x 1/2) according to the statutory share of inheritance.

(6) Sub-committee

The Defendants are obligated to pay KRW 80,946,310 (legally inherited KRW 68,396,310 + funeral expenses + KRW 2,550,000 + funeral expenses + KRW 10,000) for each of the Plaintiffs 8, and KRW 78,396,310 for the Plaintiff 9 (legally inherited KRW 68,396,310 + KRW 10,000 + 3,000,000) for each of them, and KRW 3,00,000 for the Plaintiff 10 and delay damages.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendants are entitled to 184,678,160 won for each of the plaintiffs 1, 182, 128, 160 won for 182, 128, 160 won for 5,88, 764 won for 5, 93,338, 764 won for 80, 846, 310 won for 80,396, 396, 310 won for 9, 396, 33, 4, 7, and 10 for 3,00,000 won for each of the plaintiffs 1, 200 won for 182,128,160 won for 5, 500 won for 93,338,764 won for 80,310 won for 80,396,310 won for 90,3000 won for 15,000 won for 25% for each of the remaining damages for 2.

Judges Park Jae-ho (Presiding Judge)