beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation on this part of the facts and the Plaintiff’s assertion is the same as the pertinent part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of
2. The "defect in the construction and management of a public structure" under Article 5 (1) of the State Compensation Act refers to a state in which the public structure is not equipped with safety ordinarily required according to its use. In the construction and management of a public structure, it cannot be said that there is a defect in the construction or management of the public structure because it does not have high level of safety to the extent that it always maintains a perfect condition. The degree of duty to take protective measures imposed on the installer or manager of the public structure is to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the danger of the public structure. Thus, in the case of a road which is a public structure, it is sufficient to have a relative safety in which the person who installs and manages it is expected to use the public structure, taking into account the relationship with other essential facilities or the financial, human and physical restrictions of the person who installs and manages it.
(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da5498 delivered on April 25, 2000, etc.). Therefore, the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of pleadings in each of the images as follows: ① the road of this case is a single-lane road located inside a general residential area, namely, the road of this case is a one-lane road located inside a general residential area; ② according to the cadastral map and a written confirmation of land use plan, it appears that there are separate roads on the rear side of the first site of racing, which is the site of “G” parking lot, and thus, it is sufficient for the Defendant to expect the vehicles having access to the said site to lawfully pass through the road by using a separate road, and the road of this case is driven along the runway of this case.