In the case where the parents, etc. of Gap who died due to the concentration landslide in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government while residing in Seocho-gu filed a claim for damages against Seoul Metropolitan Government and Seocho-gu, the case holding that since the Seocho-gu's public official in charge of the landslide risk management system has a duty to immediately issue a landslide warning at the time of the landslide and to instruct the residents residing in the Doksan, even though he did not take such measures, the Seocho-gu's liability for damages shall be recognized, on the ground that there was negligence on the ground that the Seocho-gu did not take any such measures, but the scope of the compensation for damages to be compensated by the Seocho-gu is limited to 50% because the Doksan concentration of national land which is difficult to find a precedent overlaps with the negligence of Seocho-gu and caused the death of Gap.

In a case where Gap's parents, etc. who were buried in the soil and sand, rainwater, etc. which were buried in the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as "Seocho-gu") while residing in the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as "Seocho-gu") sought damages against Seoul Metropolitan Government and Seocho-gu, the case holding that, in light of the fact that the Seoul Metropolitan Government violated the former Erosion Control Work Act (amended by Act No. 10844, Jul. 14, 2011; hereinafter referred to as the "former Erosion Control Work Act"), such as the implementation of the erosion control project delegated by the Republic of Korea, etc., or that it was difficult for Seocho-gu residents to recognize the landslide management system at the time of the issuance of landslide and safety management (hereinafter referred to as the "former Disaster Management Act"), and that it was difficult for Seocho-gu to recognize the duty of disaster management agencies to take measures such as landslide prevention measures under the former Disaster Management Act, or that it did not comply with the directions and orders of the Korea Disaster Management System, etc.

Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act; Articles 2 subparag. 2, 3, 5, and 7-3(1) of the former Erosion Control Work Act (Amended by Act No. 10844, Jul. 14, 201); Articles 3, 4-2 [Attachment 1] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Erosion Control Work Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23453, Dec. 30, 201); Articles 3 subparag. 5(a) of the former Framework Act on the Management of Disasters and Safety (Amended by Act No. 11346, Feb. 22, 2012); 3 subparag. 5(a) and 26(1) (see current Article 25-2(1) and (6) (see current Article 25-2(5)), 27(1) and 38, and 7-3(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Erosion Control Work Act; Article 13(1)6(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 2013(16(3).

Plaintiff 1 and two others (Attorney Kim Yong-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul Special Metropolitan City and one other (Attorney Han-won et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

May 13, 2016

1. Defendant Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government shall pay to Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 2 70,135,971 won, and to Plaintiff 3 2,00,000 won with 5% per annum from July 27, 2011 to June 3, 2016, and 15% per annum from the following day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' claims against the Seoul Metropolitan Government and the remaining claims against the defendant Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government are dismissed, respectively.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City shall be borne by the plaintiffs, and 1/4 of the part arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City shall be borne by the plaintiffs, and the remainder

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The Defendants jointly pay 96,390,359 won to Plaintiffs 1 and 2, and 2,50,000 won to Plaintiffs 3, as well as 5% per annum from July 27, 2011 to the date of this judgment, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The relationship between the parties

1) Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased Nonparty who died of the landslide in Doksan, and Plaintiff 3 is the parents of the deceased Nonparty.

2) Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “Defendant Seoul”) and Defendant Seocho-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “Defendant Seocho-gu”) are local governments having jurisdiction over some of the areas among Myeonsan.

(b) The current status of Myeongsan;

1) Dogsan is a mountain with a height of 293 meters located in a single unit, such as Yang Jae-dong, Seocho-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government, and Dog-dong, and there are apartment complexes and housing complexes and housing complexes in the west-dong, west-dong, and Dong-dong, and adjacent to the south-west circulation road. The house complex, such as electric source village, ship-based village, etc. is located in the west side, the apartment complex and housing complex in the west-dong, the west-dong, Yangdong-dong, the apartment complex and housing complex in the west-dong, and the apartment complex and agricultural facilities in the south side are located.

2) On the shores from the south of the west to the west to the west of the west to the west of the west to the west of the west to the west of the west to the west of the west to the west of the west to the west of the west to the west of the west to the west of the west to the west to the west.

(c) Doksan landslide;

1) From September 21, 2010 to September 23, 2010, a landslide (an area of 42,000 square meters; hereinafter “2010 landslide”) occurred in the Myeongsan, which was caused by a typhoon’s difficult wave. As a result, the earth and stone products (the rapid flow of rocks, gravel, sand, and soil mixed with water in a relatively high concentration) flow into the fluoral apartment and the fluorial rock located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, as shown in the annex 1.

2) On the other hand, from around 16:20 on July 26, 201, to the following day, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seocho-gu, and Gangnam-gu had a maximum of 112.5 meters (the criteria for the actual observation station in Gangnam-gu) per hour, and as a result, from around 07:40 on July 27, 201 to around 08:40 on July 27, 201, about 13 districts (a total of 690,000 square meters) in Myeongsan-si, 150 square meters, and soil and stone were generated in 31 basins (hereinafter “the landslide in this case”).

3) Due to the landslide in this case, 16 members died, 51 members were injured, and 11 households were destroyed, and one of the households was spread.

D. The instant death accident

The deceased non-party was located in the reflect bank (hereinafter “the instant accident site”) of the house located in Seocho-gu Seoul (hereinafter “the instant accident site”) located in Seocho-gu, Seoul (attached Form 3) but was buried in the earth and sand, rainwater, etc., which was pushed down due to the landslide between July 27, 201 and 07:40, and around 08:00, and died (hereinafter “the instant death accident”).

[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements and images, Gap's statements and videos, Gap's 1 through 9, 26 through 29, 31, 39, 49, 52 through 58, 63, 119, 120, Eul's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, and 13 (including provisional numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

Since the deceased Non-Party died due to the following negligence of the Defendants, the Defendants jointly have a duty to compensate for the damages incurred therefrom pursuant to Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act.

A. As to Defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government

1) Claim regarding Erosion Control Work

Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which is obligated to perform the duties under the Work against Land Erosion or Collapse Act with delegation from the Republic of Korea, did not properly perform the duties under the Work against Land Erosion or Collapse Act, such as investigation into the actual condition of the abolition of land (Article 3-3 of the Act), designation, consultation, designation, public announcement, and public announcement of modification (Article 4 of the Act), receipt and review of the work against land erosion or collapse, designation and public announcement of the work against land erosion or collapse, consultation and imposition of conditions (Article 6 of the Act), management of the erosion or collapse (Article 15 of the Act), cancellation and public announcement of designation of the work against land erosion or collapse (Article 20 of the Act). However, if Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City did not neglect such duties and did not properly implement the work against land erosion or collapse, such as prevention of landslides, recovery, and preservation of mountainous districts, it would have been able to prevent the landslide in this case that occurred simultaneously at

2) Claims pertaining to the Framework Act on Disaster and Safety Management

Article 26 (Disaster Management Act (hereinafter “Disaster Management Act”) of the Framework Act on Disaster and Safety Management (hereinafter “Disaster Management Act”), Article 26 (Obligation of the heads of disaster management agencies to secure project funds necessary for the designation, management, and maintenance of facilities subject to specific management, etc., the obligation to efficiently implement disaster prevention measures, and the obligation to maintain and supplement safety management systems and safety management regulations, Article 27 (Establishment and implementation of long-term and long-term plans to eliminate the risk of disaster occurrence from the management, etc. of facilities subject to specific management, etc., safety inspection or precise safety diagnosis of facilities subject to specific management, etc.), Article 31 (Report, etc. on Facilities subject to Specific Management, etc.), Article 32 (Designation, etc. of Facilities subject to Specific Management, etc.), Article 34 (Formulation and Implementation of Long-term and Long-term Plans to eliminate the risk of disaster occurrence, etc.) of the above Act, and if Defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government fulfilled its obligations

(iii) argument regarding the violation of the instruction and order of the Korea Forest Service, Fire Prevention Agency, etc.

Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City, by formally implementing or neglecting the Erosion Control Work Act or the Disaster Management Act and subordinate statutes, among a large number of official announcements ordered and ordered by the Korea Forest Service, the Korea Fire Prevention Agency, etc., the damage caused by the landslide of this case was aggravated by increasing the impact of earth and rocks caused by the landslide of this case.

B. As to the defendant Seocho-gu

1) As to the law on the prevention of steep slopess

The defendant Seocho-gu, as prescribed by the Act on the Prevention of Steep Disasters (hereinafter referred to as the "Peep slope Act"), has been performed on the landslide basin of this case, i.e., the designation and management (safety inspection of steep slopes), Articles 6 (Investigation, Designation, etc. of Areas at Risk of Collapse), 8 (Establishment and Operation of Areas at Risk of Collapse), 9 (Establishment and Operation of Areas at Risk of Collapse Management), 10 (Consultation on Activities in Areas at Risk of Collapse), 1 (Installation of Areas at Risk of Collapse), and 11 (Installation of Areas at Risk of Collapse), Chapter V emergency Measures and Emergency Imposition [Article 17 (Emergency Safety Measures, etc. for Prevention of Disasters), Article 18 (Evacuation Orders, etc.), Articles 3 (Disaster Risk Assessment, etc.), 4 (Regular Survey Management), 9 (Emergency Measures, etc. in Areas at Risk of Collapse), and Article 9 (Emergency Measures, etc. in Areas at Risk of Collapse) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act did not prevent or minimize damage caused by the landslide in the area at risk of steep slope.

2) Claims concerning disaster management law

The defendant Seocho-gu, as a disaster management agency under the Disaster Management Act, failed to perform its duties under the Disaster Management Act, such as the obligation to secure project funds necessary for the disaster prevention measures, designation, management and maintenance of the disaster management agencies, facilities subject to specific management, etc., the obligation to efficiently implement disaster prevention measures, the obligation to maintain and supplement safety management systems and safety management regulations, Article 27 (including the management, etc. of facilities subject to specific management, etc.), Article 27 (Formulation and Implementation of a long-term and long-term plan, safety inspection or precise safety diagnosis for the facilities subject to specific management, etc. to eliminate the risk of disaster occurrence from the facilities subject to specific management, etc.), Article 31 (Report, etc. on Facilities Subject to Specific Management, etc.), Article 32 (Designation, etc. of Facilities Subject to Specific Management, etc.), Article 34 (Formulation and Implementation of Long-term and

(iii) argument regarding the violation of the instruction and order of the Korea Forest Service, Fire Prevention Agency, etc.

Defendant Seocho-gu, in addition to the provisions concerning the Steep slope Act and the Disaster Management Act, has been ordered and ordered by the Korea Forest Service, the Korea Forest Service, the Korea Fire Prevention Agency, etc. from Defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government, as well as the obligation to maintain and expand drainage and dial alteration in preparation for rain, concentration, storm, typhoon, etc., Defendant Seocho-gu, as it formally performed or neglected to perform the obligation to remove and adjust wasteggs caused by death collapse, punishment, etc. from landslide risk areas, and eventually neglected almost as it is, thereby causing damage caused by the landslide.

(iv) argument regarding the issuance of a landslide warning and measures for resident evacuation;

Although Defendant Seocho received a landslide warning message from the Korea Forest Service on the date of the landslide of this case, Defendant Seocho did not take measures to minimize damage, such as issuing a landslide warning or warning, or evacuation of residents, to residents living in the U.S., including the Plaintiffs.

3. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Relevant legal principles

In order to recognize State liability due to omission of public officials, as cases where a State liability for compensation is recognized by a public official’s act of act, “where a public official inflicts damage on another person by intention or negligence in violation of the statutes” should meet the requirements of Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act. Here, “in violation of the statutes” does not mean cases where a public official explicitly provided for in the statutes of a strict formal meaning, despite its duty to act by a public official, such as respect for human rights, prohibition of abuse of power, and good faith, violates such duty. It includes cases where an act is widely lacking objective justification, including cases where a public official violates the rules or regulations that should be observed as a public official, such as respect for human rights, prohibition of abuse of authority, and good faith. Therefore, if a State, whose primary mission is to protect the lives, bodies, property of the people, has occurred or is highly likely to occur, it is difficult to recognize that the public official’s duty to act was 60 times or 60 times due to omission, which is likely to have been committed by the public official.

B. Determination on the claim against Defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government

1) Determination on the assertion regarding Erosion Control Work

First of all, in order to restore the yellow land, or prevent or prevent collapse of the mountainous district, erosion of soil, rocks, trees, etc., or sand erosion, etc., a structure is constructed, or plants are planted or planted, or a project to create landscape or develop source incidental thereto (Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Act). Of erosion control projects, in a mountainous district, a landslide prevention project is implemented to prevent landslides in an erosion control project, a landslide prevention project is implemented to recover an area where a landslide has occurred, a mountainous district conservation project is implemented to restore a mountainous district to restore a damaged mountainous district due to natural or artificial causes, a mountainous district restoration project is implemented to reduce the flow of a mountain stream and prevent erosion, a mountain stream conservation project to restore a mountain district, a mountain district restoration project to prevent natural or artificial causes, a mountain stream restoration project to restore a mountain stream, a mountain stream reclamation project to prevent erosion and erosion, and a mountain road restoration project to prevent erosion and erosion from across or spreading soil and stone erosion by installing a small-scale dam (Article 3 of the Act).

A State project (Article 5 (1) of the Act), a Mayor/Do Governor, or the head of a regional Forest Service may implement an erosion control project, as prescribed by Presidential Decree (Article 5 (2) of the Act), and Article 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Erosion Control Work Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23453, Dec. 30, 201) provides that, in cases of an erosion control area, which is a State forest under the jurisdiction of the Korea Forest Service, the head of a regional Forest Service shall perform the project, and in cases of an erosion control area, a Mayor/Do Governor shall implement an erosion control project. When a Mayor/Do Governor intends to implement an erosion control project, he/she shall conduct an erosion control project in accordance with attached Table 4-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Erosion Control Work Act (amended by Act No. 10844, Jul. 14, 201; hereinafter referred to as the "former Erosion Control Work Act") in advance, taking into account the necessity, appropriateness, environment, etc. of the basic plan and the erosion control project.

As to the instant case, since the 2nd basin of electric village, including the site of the instant accident, was not an area of landslide in 2010, it does not fall under the proviso to Article 7-3(1) of the former Erosion Control Work Act, and as such, the Defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government should make a decision as to whether to implement the erosion control project, such as a landslide prevention project, when it is deemed necessary after evaluating the feasibility. However, there is no specific assertion or proof by the Plaintiffs as to whether the criteria for evaluating the necessity of implementing the erosion control project prescribed in Article 4-2 and attached Table 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Erosion Control Work Act are met. Thus, even if the Defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government did not designate and manage as an erosion control area for performing the erosion control project, such circumstance alone is insufficient to readily conclude that the Defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government violated its duty under the

2) Determination on the assertion on disaster management law

A) Pursuant to the former Framework Act on the Management of Disasters and Safety (amended by Act No. 11346, Feb. 22, 2012; hereinafter “former Disaster Management Act”), Defendant Seoul, a local government, is obligated to take measures to prevent disasters in advance, such as designating, managing, and maintaining a disaster as a disaster management agency (Article 3 subparag. 5(a)), where a disaster, such as a rain, is highly likely to occur, or where continuous management is deemed necessary for disaster prevention (Article 3 subparag. 5(a)). The head of a disaster management agency shall take measures, such as safety inspection or precise safety diagnosis, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, when designating a specific control area and an area subject to specific control (Article 26(1)).

However, the criteria, procedures, and methods of designating the facilities subject to specific management prescribed by Presidential Decree (Article 26(6) of the Act) and Article 33(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Disaster Management Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23263, Oct. 26, 201; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Disaster Management Act”) provide that where a disaster management agency is a local government, the Administrator of the National Emergency Management Agency shall establish guidelines for the designation, management, etc. of the facilities subject to specific management and areas. Since there is no specific assertion or proof as to the fact that the cost of the friendly mountain, including electric village2 basins, corresponds to the facilities subject to specific management and areas prescribed in the detailed designation standards of the “standards for the facilities subject to specific management, etc.” established by the Administrator of the National Emergency Management Agency, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government violated the duty to take measures, such as designating the Dasan Japan as the facilities subject

B) Meanwhile, Article 32(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Disaster Management Act provides that “the head of the disaster management agency shall investigate the current status of facilities under his/her jurisdiction on a regular or occasional basis every year in order to designate specific management facilities and areas.” Article 26(1) of the former Disaster Management Act provides that “The head of the disaster management agency shall investigate the current status of facilities under his/her jurisdiction on a regular or occasional basis in order to prevent the occurrence of a disaster in advance, by organizing and organizing the organization to cope with the disaster, by forecasting and providing information systems, by conducting education and training in preparation for the occurrence of a disaster, and promoting disaster management, by establishing safety management systems in a field with a high risk of a disaster, and by establishing safety management regulations for the field with a high risk of a disaster, by means of saving materials and materials, by maintaining disaster prevention facilities, and by designating equipment and human resources, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs alone cannot be deemed to have violated his/her duty to take measures for

① In order to prevent landslides and flood damage by dividing grades of dangerous areas within forests from landslides in 2010, Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City was seen to have taken measures to prevent landslides, such as the installation of a remote release network, and the implementation of a safety management plan every year in accordance with Article 24 of the former Disaster Management Act, in order to prevent landslides and flood damage.

② Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City completed the restoration design by April 201 in accordance with the Korea Forest Service’s restoration plan jointly with Defendant Seocho-gu, and carried out restoration works in areas where landslides occurred from April 29, 201 to April 2011. At the time of July 7, 2011, Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City was planned to complete restoration works by 70% and by July 29, 201.

③ Since the landslide occurred in 2010, Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City would implement the project as a comprehensive maintenance vehicle in the forest basin beyond the existing level of recovery. Upon receiving a request for service expenses from the Korea Forest Service, Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City notified the head of Seocho-gu, etc. of the implementation plan for forest basin management project centered on Namsan, Myeonsan, and Masan, on May 25, 2011. According to the aforementioned plan, the project feasibility evaluation and design was completed in 2011 and the construction of the erosion control dam was scheduled from 2012 to 2014 in connection with the relevant autonomous Gu (the Defendant Seocho-gu in case of Myeonsan), and accordingly, the project feasibility assessment was conducted from June 9, 2011 to July 8, 2011. In addition, the Seocho-gu Special Metropolitan City implemented the comprehensive plan for forest basin management project from 2010 to 2010 to 2010 to 2010 to 2011.

④ In light of the fact that a landslide in 2010 occurred in two basins from the shores north of the west of the west of the west of the west of the west, and caused property damage of KRW 400,000,00 to the apartment house, such as the site of the vehicle into which soil and rock flows, buried, etc., and the cause of human life damage has not occurred. From that point, it seems impossible for Defendant Seocho-gu to predict and maintain and manage all risks of disasters within its jurisdiction for a period of not more than one year until the landslide in this case occurred, in terms of organizational and financial aspects, and it is necessary to conduct recovery work on the landslide area first in order to prevent additional landslides, prior to the landslide in 2010 or the occurrence of the landslide in this case, it cannot be deemed that Defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government was specifically aware that there was a very high risk of landslides in the west of the west of the west of the west of the west of the Republic of Korea, and there is no other data to acknowledge that there was a specific circumstance to be.

⑤ Even if Defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government perceived such risk as a landslide in 2010, it requires experts to analyze and examine their causes, possibility, and means of the landslide prevention measures, and substantial budget is spent, and it requires a long-term period of time to complete the construction project and undergo administrative procedures. It is difficult to deem that the Defendants had sufficient time to establish and implement the measures for prevention and prevention of landslides from September 201 to July 201, where one year has not passed since the landslide occurred in 2010.

(6) Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, the landslide of this case is a natural disaster that occurred due to the centralized rain recording the recorded strong rains within a short time and the geological characteristics of the U.S. Doksan, and it is difficult for Defendant Seoul Government to prevent the landslide even if it fulfilled its duty of care necessary to prevent the landslide of this case.

According to the results of observation by the Seocho-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seocho-gu, and Gangnam-gu, the day before the date of the landslide in this case, 364.5m or 424.5m from July 27, 201 to July 20, 201, which is located within about 2 km from the Myeongsan, and the observation station located within the distance of about 1/4m from approximately 1/4m to about 112.5m or 112.5m from the time when the landslide in this case occurred, the area was found to have been located within 07:40m or 108:40m or more from July 27, 201 to about 200m or more from the normal 40m or more from each of the above observation stations to 200m or more from July 27, 2011.

As a result of the analysis of the data from the radars in the Republic of Korea, it was formed in the direction of Northwest, which is an area in which the Myeongsan was linked to the Magsan at the time of the landslide in this case (The theory seems to have been emphasized in many quantities in the Myeongsan, which was formed in the direction of Northwest, in the direction of the 10km wide and 50km long, in the direction of the Mag-shaped, in the direction of the Mag-shaped, in the direction of the Mag-shaped, in which the Mag-shaped was formed, in the direction of the Mag-shaped, and in the direction of the Mag-shaped, in the direction of the Mag-shaped.

C. The final report on the addition and supplementation of the causes of the landslide from March 2014 was analyzed as the frequency of the maximum rainfall by continuous time at the time of the landslide in this case (5 to 20 years, and 7 to 120 years, respectively), but it was analyzed based on the strong statistics of the Seoul Observation Station located at a distance of 1.7 km from the top of the Myeonsan. As the result of the analysis of the radar image, since the radar image was located at the top of 2011, it was analyzed that the strong rain of the Madsan was at least 1.5 times, and that the maximum rainfall by continuous time was at least 12 hours prior to the outbreak of the landslide in this case, 6 hours, and 10 hours prior to the date of the landslide in 2011, it seems difficult to accept the results of the analysis of the 10th of the 10th of the 10th of the 10th of the 10th of the 10th of the Myeon.

㉣ 우면산 일대는 지질학적 특성상 인근 지역에 비해 산사태 및 토석류 발생 위험도가 높고, 특히 이 사건 산사태가 발생한 유역은 그 지질위험도를 Ⅰ등급부터 Ⅴ등급으로 구분할 때 대부분의 지역이 Ⅲ등급(보통 불안정)으로, 일부 지역이 Ⅱ등급(심한 불안정)인 것으로 분석되었는바, 그와 같은 지질 특성을 지닌 우면산 일대에 위와 같이 많은 양의 비가 집중적으로 내림으로써 토양이 흡수할 수 있는 포화상태를 넘어서면서 땅 위를 흐르던 빗물이 점점 더 빠른 속도로 사면의 흙을 파내고 계곡을 깎아내려 이 사건 산사태가 발생하는데 결정적인 역할을 하였던 것으로 보인다.

7) From June 29, 2011 to July 26, 2011, prior to the occurrence of the instant landslide, Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City issued a public notice to the head of the Seocho-gu local government, including the head of the Seocho-gu Office, who was issued a landslide warning and warning, throughout several times, to thoroughly prevent flood damage to prevent landslides, etc. in preparation for concentrated rain, and the method of computerizedizing the method of issuing a warning warning and warning, strengthening emergency duty attitude according to the weather conditions in the jurisdiction, and maintaining an emergency liaison system.

3) Determination as to the assertion regarding the violation of the instruction and order by the Korea Forest Service and the Korea Fire Prevention Agency

The plaintiffs asserted to the effect that the defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government aggravated damage caused by the landslide by formally implementing or neglecting the provisions of the Erosion Control Work Act or the Disaster Management Act among a large number of official announcements ordered and ordered by the Korea Forest Service, the Korea Fire Prevention Agency, etc., and eventually neglecting them as they were, thereby increasing the impact of earth and rocks caused by the landslide in this case. However, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is unclear, and as seen earlier, it is insufficient to view that the above statutes are not applicable or that the defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government neglected it. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the plaintiffs' assertion on this part.

C. Determination on the claim against the defendant Seocho-gu

1) Determination on the assertion on the Steep slope Act

A) The term "seep slope" as prescribed by the Steep slope Act means ① a steep slope with a height of at least 50 meters from the ground attached to a housing site, road, railroad, or park facility, and a natural slope with a gradient of at least 34 degrees, ② an artificial slope (including a retaining wall, an embankment, etc.) with a gradient of at least five meters from the ground, and with a gradient of at least 34 degrees, or a mountainous district adjacent thereto.

B) According to the health team, Gap evidence No. 48, and the video of the case, among the basin of the second basin of the power source village in which the accident of this case is located, the gradient of the landslide of this case is 11-45 degrees, and the average slope level is 35.7 degrees. However, the above facts alone are insufficient to recognize that there is a slope that meets the requirements of a steep slope among the natural slopes in the basin of the power source village 2, namely, the requirements of a steep slope among the natural slopes in the basin of the power source village 2, i.e., (i) it was attached to a site, road, railroad, park, park facilities, etc., and (ii) the ground level is at least 50 meters, and (iii)

C) Even if a steep slope was included in the basin 2 basin of electric source village, it is difficult to view that Seocho-gu did not perform the obligations prescribed in the Steep slope Act on the same ground as stated in subparagraph 3.b. (b)(b).

2) Determination on the assertion on disaster management law

The plaintiffs' above assertion against the defendant Seocho-gu is without merit for the same reasons as stated in Paragraph (b) 2 above.

3) Determination as to the assertion regarding the violation of the instruction and order by the Korea Forest Service and the Korea Fire Prevention Agency

Although Defendant Seocho-gu is obligated to maintain and expand drainage and rupture in preparation for rain, concentration, storm, typhoon, etc., and waste grupture due to death collapse, and spouting trees should be removed and adjusted from the landslide risk area, it is almost neglected as it is by performing or neglecting it formally, and eventually, the damage caused by the landslide in this case was aggravated by increasing the impact of earth and rocks caused by the landslide in this case. However, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is unclear, and it is insufficient to recognize the violation of the above instruction and order only by the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' assertion on this part is not acceptable.

4) Determination on the assertion regarding the issuance of landslide alerts and resident evacuation measures

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged as a whole in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to deem that Defendant Seocho-gu’s public official in charge of the management of landslide risk areas (hereinafter “ landslide management system”) or the public official in charge of the management of disaster as public officials in charge of the management of disaster at least at least 07:40 on July 27, 2011, when the landslide in this case occurred, it was sufficiently known that the requirements for issuing the landslide warning have been satisfied. Moreover, the realistic possibility of the landslide in this case and the possibility of causing risks to the lives, bodies, and property of the residents therefrom can be predicted. As such, it is reasonable to deem that the immediate landslide warning was issued and the public official in charge of the management of the disaster in Seocho-gu was liable to instruct the escape by using regional broadcasting or a transit organization as urgent circumstances, and even if the Defendant did not take such measures, it is difficult to deem that there was negligence between the Nonparty and the Nonparty in this case.

(1) As a disaster management agency under the former Disaster Management Act, Defendant Seocho-gu has a duty to take measures concerning the composition and maintenance of the organization to cope with a disaster, the forecast of a disaster, and the establishment of a system for the delivery of maintenance and improvement of a disaster, etc. (Article 26 (1) of the

② From 2006, the Korea Forest Service affiliated with the Republic of Korea established a landslide management system and supplied it to each local government. The landslide management system provides through the website of the Korea Forest Service a map of landslide risk areas indicating the nationwide mountainous district classified by risk level at four levels in consideration of slope length, mother cancer, slope location, type of trees, surface style, earth depth, and gradient. In addition, the landslide management system automatically analyzes real-time weather information from the Korea Meteorological Administration and, as a result, automatically analyzes the city rain, strong rain, and continuous rainfall are transmitted to a public official in charge of the Korea Forest Service, and the relevant local government so transmitted shall take measures, such as issuing a landslide warning and warning, in accordance with Article 38 of the former Disaster Management Act, according to the situation spread system, considering the actual weather situation.

(3) On June 18, 2008, the Korea Forest Service recommended each local government to comply with the methods of the landslide management system, landslide reporting and warning system, measures to be taken at the time of issuing landslide warning or warning (including strengthening the relevant public official or executive officers and employees emergency service system, strengthening the inspection of landslide risk areas, and measures to evacuate residents). On April 14, 2011, each local government actively used the landslide management system to conduct a concentrated survey on mountainous areas in the vicinity of housing, buildings, etc., and designated an additional area as a risk area. On May 18, 2011, the Korea Forest Service provided education on the establishment of the landslide management system, flow map, and method of use. In addition, on May 31, 2011, the Korea Forest Service did not provide public officials belonging to local governments with an opportunity to report and train the situation of landslides, and did not participate in the nationwide reporting and instruction of the public officials in charge of landslide management (including notification and notification of the situation of landslides, etc.).

④ From June 22, 2011 to July 27, 2011, the Korea Forest Service issued a landslide risk warning and warning pursuant to the landslide management system to each metropolitan local government head, etc. including the Seoul Special Metropolitan City head on six occasions, and issued a landslide prevention warning and warning pursuant to the landslide management system, and ordered local residents to publicize the media, give notice of text messages, and direct residents to evacuate to a safe local area. From June 29, 2011 to July 26, 2011, Seoul City Mayor also issued an order to thoroughly conduct a preliminary inspection on areas vulnerable to disasters on five occasions, strengthen emergency duty attitude, and input whether to cancel a landslide warning and warning ( radio waves to Dong residents) pursuant to the landslide management system.

⑤ On July 26, 201, the day immediately before the landslide in this case occurred, the Korea Forest Service sent text messages to four public officials in charge of Seocho-gu who are registered as public officials belonging to the Defendant in charge of the above system through the landslide management system on July 19, 201 and 20:24, and the next day 02:31, respectively. One of them received text messages sent three times as above, but the remaining one was the person retired from the Korea Forest Service on June 30, 2007, and the remaining two were not registered with the landslide management system and did not receive the above text messages. In fact, the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government did not issue a warning or warning to the U.S. landslide until the landslide in this case occurred, taking into account the fact that there was no warning or warning from the Korea Forest Service after receiving the above text messages from the Korea Forest Service at the time of the landslide in this case, and it did not have the system to respond to the landslide in this case.

(6) Even if it is impossible to expect Defendant Seocho-gu, a disaster management agency, to install landslide prevention facilities in preparation for centralized rain around July 26, 201, it seems that it could be sufficiently anticipated to minimize the damage of human life and property by taking measures to issue a warning and warning of early landslide to the residents of the U-do in the U.S., the U.S., in consideration of weather conditions at the time, etc.

7) On July 27, 2011, the Seocho Police Station notified the Defendant Seocho-gu of the traffic control on the south side circulation from the 07:35 north northwest of west-si to the direction of the Eastwest, and on July 27, 201, the traffic control was completely controlled on the south side circulation. In addition, around July 27, 2011, at around 07:37, there was a 119 report stating that “the water flows out of the bank,” “the water flows out of the bank,” and such situation was reported from around 07:40 on the same day to the press. From around 01:10 on July 27, 2011, from around 01:00 to around 07:40 on July 27, 2011, the landslide management system began to take place from around 01:00 to around 07:40 on July 27, 2011.

4. Limitation on liability against the defendant Seocho-gu

However, it is reasonable to limit the scope of compensation for damages caused by a tort to the remaining portion after deducting the portion deemed to have contributed to natural ability from the perspective of fair burden of damages (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da79947, Jan. 12, 2012). As seen earlier, it is difficult to find the first instance case in 2011, and it is difficult to find such a first instance case. In light of the above, it is reasonable to limit the scope of compensation for damages to 50% by the Defendant, in view of the fact that the damage suffered by the victim was caused by competition with the Defendant’s negligence in Seocho-gu.

5. Scope of compensation for damage to the defendant Seocho-gu.

In addition to the following separate statements, each item of the following calculation table of damages shall be the same as each item of the following calculation table, and the period for the convenience of calculation shall be calculated on a monthly basis, but less than the last month and less than won shall be discarded. The current value calculation at the time of the accident shall be in accordance with the simple interest rate which deducts the interim interest at the rate of 5/12 per month. It shall be rejected that the parties’ arguments do not separately state.

(a) Actual income:

1) Personal information: The deceased Nonparty, (date of birth omitted), the (date of birth July 27, 201, and the one year and four years of age at the time of the accident) and the male

(ii) Income: Urban daily wage of ordinary workers, and the number of working days on the 22th day of each month;

(iii) Operating period: from March 15, 2031 until the date on which he/she reaches the age of 21 that he/she is expected to complete military service;

(iv) Cost of living: 1/3 of income;

5) Lost income: The following entry is made in the column of lost income of the period in the table:

On March 15, 2031, 2070 March 14, 2070, 94, 338 22,075, 436 1/3703 328.0501 235, 1635 163.05 164, 4684, 227,50,543,884 on March 15, 207, daily income cost of living m1 m1 m2 m2 m1 m2 m2 m1-2 m1-2 m2 m1-2 applicable m2 m2 m1-2 for the number of monthly income as of the date of commencement of the voting period as

6) Calculation: 113,771,942 won (=27,543,884 won x Defendant Seocho-gu’s liability ratio 50%)

(b) Funeral expenses.

(i) Amount: 5,000,000 won (based on recognition: empirical rule);

2) Calculation: 2,500,000 won (=5,000,000 x Defendant Seocho-gu’s liability ratio 50%)

(c) Compensation money;

1) Reasons: The deceased’s age, family relation, the deceased’s reason and result, and all other circumstances revealed in the argument of this case.

2) The amount recognized

A) Deceased: 16,000,000 won

B) Plaintiffs 1 and 2: Each of 4,000,000 won

C) Plaintiff 3: 2,000,000 won

(d) Inheritance relations; and

1) Amount subject to inheritance: 132,271,942 won (=actual income of KRW 113,771,942 + Funeral expenses of KRW 2,500,000 + 16,000,000 for consolation money)

2) Inheritor: Plaintiffs 1 and 2

(iii) calculation;

Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 2: Each of 66,135,971 (=132,271,942) x 1/2)

E. Sub-decision

Therefore, Defendant Seocho-gu is obligated to pay to Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 2 each of KRW 70,135,971 (=66,135,971 + KRW 4,000,00) and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act and 15% per annum as requested by the Plaintiffs from July 27, 2011 where the deceased Nonparty died until June 3, 2016, which is the date of the instant judgment, until June 3, 2016, and from the next day to the date of full payment.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims against defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government are dismissed, and plaintiffs' claims against defendant Seocho-gu are accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed.

[Attachment 1] The location of the collapse of the Dogsan, the collapse of the Dogsan at the time of the landslide in 2010, and the occurrence of soil and rocks: omitted]

[Attachment 2] The location of the collapse of the Dogsan, the site of the collapse of the Dogsan and the site of soil and stone at the time of the landslide in 2011: omitted

[Attachment 3] The current status of death by basin due to the landslide of this case: omitted

[Attachment 4] Omitted

Judges Jeon Soo-tae (Presiding Judge)

1) The term “devaination” means an area where mountainous districts (including other land), are collapsed due to natural or artificial causes, soil, rocks, trees, etc., or sand erode, etc., and which requires restoration work to preserve national land, prevent disasters, create landscapes, or cultivate source (Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Erosion Control Work Act).