2010 Gohap1288 damages

1. Kim○○○ (******************))

2. ○○○ (********************))

3. Kim○○○ (******************))

Jeonju-si United Kingdom of America

4. Kim○○○ (******************))

Plaintiff 1,2,4's Address Jeonju-dong 1

[Judgment of the court below]

Jeonju City

Representative City Haw-jin

Law Firm Woo (Law Firm Woo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Attorney Kang Jae-soo

April 22, 2010

June 10, 2010

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff Kim ○, 41,377,814 won, 3,000,000 won, 1,000,000 won, and 5% per annum from July 21, 2007 to June 10, 2010, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are all dismissed.

2. 65% of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiffs, and 35% by the Defendant.

3. The above paragraph (1) can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff Kim ○, 282,780,518 won, and 5,000,000 won to the plaintiff Lee ○○○, and 10,000,000 won, respectively, and 5% per annum from July 21, 2007 to the service date of the duplicate of the letter of request for the alteration of the lawsuit in this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff Lee ○○ is the wife of the plaintiff Kim ○○, and the plaintiff Kim ○ and Kim ○○ are the children of the plaintiff Kim ○○, and the defendant is the local government that manages a pair of legss (hereinafter referred to as "bridges") in Jinjin-gu, Jin-gu, Seoul.

B. At around 16:30 on July 21, 2007, Plaintiff Kim ○○, around 16:30, 2007, she walked on a pair of legss from the west-gu Taedong-gu Taedong-gu Taedong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si, and fell into a river under the leg and sustained injuries, such as external cerebriform blood, external strophropsis, chronic strokesis, undermining the shore, and she suffered injuries (hereinafter referred to as the “accident”).

C. Both legss are divided into approximately 1/3 of the two bridges in the direction of the runway in the direction of the runway in the direction of the runway in the west-gu Seoul Metropolitan City. One bridge can only be divided into about 3.6 meters in width, one vehicle has only one bridge for the first and second parts, and the other bridge is not 2.06 meters in width, and the other bridge is not able to pass by the vehicle, and there is no distinction between India and the roadway.

D. The height of the two bridges is about 3.5 meters, and both of the bridges are about 10cm high, and there is no rail railing, and there was no warning sign for pedestrians at the time of the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 9 through 12, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5 and 6 (including each number), the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Circumstances of the instant accident

As seen earlier, the fact that Plaintiff KimO opened a double-bridge and fall under the bottom of the bridge. The Plaintiffs asserted that, with respect to the circumstances of the instant accident, Plaintiff Kim○○, along with Plaintiff Kim○ and Kim○○○, tried to avoid one ton truck, which was proceeding in the opposite direction, among those on which Plaintiff Kim○○ and Kim○○, was a sloping.

In line with this, Gap evidence No. 14, as shown above, cannot be believed in light of the following circumstances acknowledged as a result of the fact-finding on Jeonju ○○○ Fire Station (fire station called at the site upon the receipt of the report of the accident in this case) and on the ○○ Hospital (the hospital transferred to the plaintiff Kim○○ after the accident in this case), ① the reporter of the accident in this case is a pregnant ○○, a person who reported the accident in this case, was not the above Kim○, Kim○○, and Kim○○, ② the type of the patient's occurrence described in the first-aid services log only includes an unexpected accident, ② the type of the patient's occurrence described in the first-aid services log, and there is no mention on the truck. ③ The patient's physical history records and nursing log in the ○○○ Hospital Emergency Center, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. However, considering the purport of the plaintiffs' assertion on the day of the accident in this case as a whole, it is reasonable to view that the two of the arguments in this case is reversed on the day.

B. Grounds for liability

"Defect in the construction or management of a public structure" in Article 5 (1) of the State Compensation Act means that the public structure is in a state of lacking safety ordinarily required for its use. However, it cannot be said that there is a defect in the construction or management of a public structure merely because the public structure is not in a state of completeness and has a defect in its function. In determining whether the construction or management of a public structure is equipped with the above safety, the criteria should be taken to determine whether the construction or management has fulfilled the duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required in light of the social norms in proportion to the danger of the public structure, by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the use of the public structure in question, the present state of the installation, the situation of its use, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da56822, Jul. 27,

In full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 9 through 13, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, and 6 (including various numbers), and the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of the on-site inspection of this court, both of them are designed and constructed as a diving bridge, and it is recognized that both of them are adjacent to the residential area. If a rail is installed on a bridge due to the nature of diving bridge, it is apprehended that water-speed floating things might be damaged by the rail of this bridge, and the flood damages may be increased by hindering water flow. However, even in the case of a diving bridge, there are examples where a bridge is installed to prevent the destruction of a bridge due to floating water, and two of them are able to remove a bridge and construct a bridge, and two of them are able to construct a bridge, and if two of them are installed, pedestrian safety facilities, other than a bridge, and pedestrian safety facilities, other than a two of them are installed, the defendant shall be able to construct a bridge at the same time, even if they are found to have a narrow bridge or a narrow bridge.

C. Limitation on liability

However, as seen earlier, even if there was no rail rail on the bridge, the width of the bridge was about 3.6m or about 2.06m in the case of adult male with normal consciousness, and even if they walked on the bridge, they did not pose a serious risk of falling down on the bridge. As Plaintiff Kim○-○ lost balance while under the influence of alcohol and fell down on the bridge, the occurrence of the instant accident was concurrent with Plaintiff Kim○-○’s negligence, and thus, Defendant’s responsibility was limited to 35%.

3. Scope of liability for damages

(a) Actual profits;

The lost profit of Plaintiff ○○○○ lost due to the instant accident is KRW 24,431,249, which was converted to the present price at the time of the instant accident under the Hofmanal Calculation Act based on the following facts and the content of the assessment.

(i) the facts of recognition and evaluation;

Personal information: Male, 19***.**.**, 1 month of age at the time of the incident**.*** year of age *** year** (50%) occupation and income: With respect to the period from July 21, 2007 to December 7, 2007, 583 won per day, from December 7, 2007, and from 60,547 won per day multiplied 22 days of operation days: 1,295, 428 won or 1, 32, 034 won: The period from July 207, 2009 to December 7, 2007, as the plaintiffs seek, from among the urban daily wage unit price as described in the report on the actual status of construction wages situation development issued by the Korea Construction Association.

② 20** from December 8, 2007, 20* from December 8, 2007, 20* 85% (Mabrid method: two brain-dead type IX-B-4)

(ii)Calculation;

The following tables (bees less than won, hereinafter the same shall apply):

A person shall be appointed.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, empirical rule, Gap evidence Nos. 7, 8, and 18 (including each number), and the result of the fact inquiry into ○○ Hospital by this court, the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of the court's entrustment of physical examination to ○○ Hospital

(b) Expenses for medical treatment;

Wool treatment costs are KRW 8,381,153.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 15, 17 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

(c) Expenses for future treatment;

The future treatment costs are ① 7,00,000 won for hospitalization and diagnosis, ② 1,078,100 won for regular medical examination, ③ 21,432,00 won for rehabilitation treatment, ③ 22,68,400 won for 4 medication, and 2,00,000 won for 5 internal medicine and surgery, and in total, 54,198,50 won for 5 internal medicine and surgery expenses.

[Grounds for recognition] Unsatisfy, the result of each physical appraisal commission to ○○ Hospital and △△ Hospital in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

(d) Nursing expenses;

1) Plaintiff Kim ○○ is in the state of necessity for the nursing of one ordinary adult woman from the date of the instant accident to the date of the hospitalized treatment. From the next day to the end of the expected time, the daily amount of nursing expenses claims is 6 hours per ordinary adult woman, 58,83 won per day for the period from July 21, 2007 to December 7, 2007, as requested by the Plaintiffs, from 60,547 won per day multiplied by 6/87 won per day, 60,41 won per 60,41 won until June 208, 2008, 206 to 60,664.6.6% per day from 60,547 won per day, multiplied by 6/88, 206, 208, 209 to 36/68, 208, 206.6% from June 21, 2008.

2) The total sum of the opening costs converted at the present price at the time of the instant accident is KRW 159,782,855 in accordance with the Hofman Calculation Act as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 7 and 18 (including additional numbers), the result of this court's commission of physical appraisal to Lee ○ Hospital, the purport of the whole pleadings

(e) Negligence offsetting;

If the defendant's liability ratio is calculated as 35% as seen above, the property damage of the plaintiff Kim○-○ is 86,377,814 won (24,431,249 won in lost profit + 8,381,153 won in treatment expenses + 54,198,500 won in future treatment expenses + 159,782,855 won in nursing expenses) 】 35% in consideration of the defendant's liability ratio.

F. The amount of KRW 50,000,000 paid by the mutual aid ○○ Insurance Co., Ltd. to Plaintiff Kim○○○ shall be deducted from the amount of pecuniary loss of Plaintiff Kim○-○.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 19, Eul evidence 4 (including a provisional number), the purport and intent of the whole pleadings, consolation money

Comprehensively taking account of the developments leading up to the occurrence of the instant accident, the age, family relationship, rate of negligence, and other various circumstances shown in the argument of the instant case, consolation money shall be set at KRW 5,00,000 to the Plaintiff Kim○○○, KRW 3,000,000 to the Plaintiff Lee○○○, KRW 1,000,000, and KRW 1,000,000 each to the Plaintiff Kim○○, and KRW 1,00,000. [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and evidence Nos. 1 through 9, and the purport

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at a rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from September 14, 2007 to June 10, 2010, which is the sentencing day of this case where it is deemed reasonable for the defendants to dispute the existence and scope of the obligation to pay to the plaintiff Kim○○, 41,377,814 (=86,37,814 - 50,000 + 50,000,000 won + 5,000 won to the plaintiff Lee○○, and 1,000,000 won to the plaintiff Kim○, Kim○, and Kim○, respectively, and 1,000 won as to each of the above amounts. Thus, the plaintiffs' claims are accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and are dismissed as the remainder of each of the above claims are without merit.

The assistant judge of the presiding judge;

Judges Pipe-jin

Judges Park Jae-min