Whether a narrow bridge, which is built by the farmland improvement association without the consent of the farmland improvement association, which is a waterway manager, children of the sloping of the narrow bridge and whether the above association is liable to compensate for the damages.

In cases where a bridge is required to connect both sides of a waterway owned and occupied by a farmland improvement association, and residents of the said Do are recommended to install a bridge on the waterway without the consent of the said association, but it is autonomously constructed a narrow bridge with a width of about 35 centimeters (7 meters in length) from the said association without the consent of the said association. The roads of the branch are about 7 meters in width and about 1 to 2 meters in depth, and the depth of the road is about 7 meters in width and about 1 to 2 meters in the above Do road, and there is a high risk of falling down and play down on the road side of the above Do road, and in cases where village residents are highly likely to cause safety accidents by falling down a narrow bridge as above, the association, the manager of the above Do road, should remove the above dangerous bridge, install a wide safe bridge, or have taken measures to prevent children from accessing the above waterway without the consent of the association, and even if it did not take such measures, the association's safety and management of the narrow bridge can not escape the above Do.

Article 758 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and four others

Dongjin Farmland Improvement Association (Attorney Park Young-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 1987.9.30, 87Na66

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the legal reasoning of the court below, if the following facts were to be established as a 67 kilometer dam located on the front west-gun side of the front west-gun at the time of the accident, and the State was constructed as an integrated agricultural development project in 1970 and transferred to the defendant's association through the Jeollabuk-do, and the defendant's association still remains in possession and possession of the road from the front west to the Do road. The above sub-resident was at a place where a bridge connecting the above two roads is necessary due to the rapid passage of the residents, and the above sub-resident was not able to construct a bridge near the above accident site, and there was no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the safety of the above Do road, and there was no danger that the above sub-resident might have a narrow bridge constructed on the Do road without permission from the front west-gun side of the above accident site, and there was no danger that the above sub-resident might have a narrow bridge constructed on the 2nd Do road.

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 Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)