2012Na41158 Damages

Kim 00

Busan Seo-gu

Korea

Busan Metropolitan City Office of Public Prosecutor's Office 15 Busan Metropolitan City as the annual court of service

Legal representative, the Minister of Justice, and the Minister of Justice

A litigation performer ○○, Park ○, ○○, ○○

Busan District Court Decision 2011Gau370937 Decided June 19, 2012

November 15, 2012

November 29, 2012

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revoked part is dismissed. 3. All costs of lawsuit are borne by the plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 4,94,914 won with 5% interest per annum from March 24, 201 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 000 A. 000 000 passenger cars (hereinafter referred to as “instant vehicle”). The Defendant is the manager of 14 national highways (as Dongwest, hereinafter referred to as “road”). Around 20:10 on March 24, 201, the Plaintiff was driving the instant vehicle and driving the instant vehicle at the third line of the road, which is the third line of the road, at the Jindo, Kimhae-si, Han-si, Kim Jong-ri, 1, and 900 m (hereinafter referred to as “the instant accident”) on the third line road, and was driving the instant vehicle at the 14th line of the 3rd line of the 3rd line of the 5th line of the road, and was driving the vehicle at the 5th line of the 14th line of the 4th line of the 194th line of the road, and was driving the vehicle at the 14th line of the 10th line of the 14th line of the 10th line of the road.

【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff, as the cause of the claim of this case, is the defendant who maintains and manages the road of this case, has neglected his duty of care not to obstruct the passage of the vehicle immediately after moving it to the road of this case. However, since the accident of this case occurred or its damage occurred due to the mistake in the construction and management of the road of this case, which is the public structure of the defendant, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damage equivalent to towing and repair expenses paid by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the traffic accident in this case does not fall under the "defect in the construction or management of public structures" of the State Compensation Act, and therefore, it does not have an obligation to compensate the plaintiff for damages.

B. Determination

The term "defect in the construction or management of a public structure" under Article 5 (1) of the State Compensation Act means that the public structure is in a state of failing to have safety ordinarily required for its use. Thus, it cannot be deemed that there is a defect in the construction or management of the public structure merely because the public structure is not in a state of completeness and has any defect in its function. Whether such safety is satisfied shall be determined on the basis of whether the construction or management of the public structure has fulfilled its duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required in proportion to the danger of the public structure by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the purpose of the public structure in question, the situation of the installation and use, etc., and whether the construction or management of the public structure has fulfilled its duty to take protective measures to the extent that is generally required in proportion to the danger of the public structure. Considering the relationship with the public structure in question, the person who installs and manages it, and the financial, human and physical constraints of the public structure, it is sufficient that the public structure has a relative safety expected to use it objectively and mentally.

(4) Unless there are special circumstances, it is presumed that there was a defect in the management of the road of this case, insofar as the road of this case is presumed to have been located far from the location of the road of this case. However, considering the following facts: ① the Jinyoung National Road Management Office directly responsible for the maintenance, repair, and management of the road of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "Minyoung National Road Management Office") managed approximately 570 km of the national road of this case, and the road management office of this case established a road patrol plan pursuant to the provisions on the maintenance and management of national highways of this case and the road of this case 20 m from the time of the accident of this case's accident of this case's accident of this case's accident of this case's accident of this case's accident of this case's accident of this case's accident of this case's accident of this case's accident of this case's accident of this case's accident of this case's accident of this case's accident of this case's 20 m to the road of this case's accident.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that it is difficult to hold the Defendant liable for damages under Article 5 (1) of the State Compensation Act, and the Plaintiff’s claim of this case premised on defects in the construction and management of public structures related to the road of this case is without merit to examine the remainder.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be dismissed in some different conclusions, so the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per

The presiding judge, the Korea Judge Judge;

Judges Kim Young-chul

Judge Lee Young-young