In a case where Party A, an insurance company, while driving a one-lane road, paid insurance money to the heir of a person who felled into a reservoir and felled into a reservoir, claimed that Party B is liable for certain damages as the managing body of the road against the local government, the case holding that Party B, who is a road manager at the time of the accident, is liable for damages by 50% of the defects in the road management, since it is difficult to view that Party B, as the managing body of the

In a case where Gap insurance company, while driving a one-lane road, paid insurance money to the heir of a person who felled into a reservoir and gets out of the reservoir and paid insurance money to the heir of the building, claimed that there was a certain liability for damages as the managing body of the road, since the damage caused by the defect in the management of the road was expanded to the local government of Eul, the case holding that Eul, a road manager, is liable for damages by 50% of Eul, on the ground that there was a defect in the road management, as long as the road was included in the site for the housing site development project, but it was still offered to the general public, and the local government of Eul was actually doing snow removal work, etc., at the time of the accident, and as long as Eul was the managing body of the road at the time of the accident, it was the manager of the road at the time of the accident.

Article 5(1) of the State Compensation Act, Article 758 of the Civil Act

Law School Loss Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Filiwon, Attorneys Choi Jung-tae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Suwon-si

March 18, 2011

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 46,236,460 and KRW 22,198,00 among these amounts, 5% per annum from February 3, 2009 to April 15, 201, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 46,236,460 won with 5% interest per annum from February 3, 2009 to the pronouncement date of this case and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The occurrence of the instant accident and the payment of insurance proceeds to the Plaintiff

(1) On May 20, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with Nonparty 1 and 80 Skiex (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”) with its insured vehicle as of May 22, 2008 to May 22, 2009.

(2) On December 23, 2008, at around 06:48, Nonparty 1 driven the instant vehicle with Nonparty 2 and 3 on board, driving the instant vehicle, driving the vehicle on the one-lane road (hereinafter “instant road”) adjacent to the new reservoir in Young-gu, Young-gu, Suwon-si, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant road”) at a flooding level from the flooding area to the flooding area, and driving the vehicle on the same day, falling into the new reservoir, falling into the new reservoir, and benefiting from Nonparty 2 and 3 (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(3) On February 3, 2009, the Plaintiff paid KRW 44,396,00 to Nonparty 4’s inheritor, and KRW 48,076,920 to Nonparty 5’s inheritor, on November 11, 2009, respectively, as insurance proceeds (with respect to Nonparty 1, the Plaintiff did not pay insurance proceeds due to differences in the amount of insurance proceeds).

B. Structure, current status, and current status of the road of this case

(1) In 200, the instant road was used by the Defendant as a road with permission for occupation and use of the water site, and the implementation plan for the Mine Site Development Zone was approved on June 26, 2007, and the Gyeonggi Local Public Corporation’s Housing Site Development Zone was included in the mineral site development zone implemented by the Gyeonggi-do Local Public Corporation. Since the instant road was the only road that enters the Suwon-si Funeral Facility, which is a funeral facility in Suwon-si, and thus, it was still being provided for general traffic despite the said housing site development project, and the Defendant, who was slick on the new wall at the time of the instant accident, slicked about the instant road.

(2) The instant road is a two-lane road of a 3-meter width of a bend and a two-lane road in the form of S (S), and if the road is out of the road, the road is cut down immediately by a short slope. At the time of the instant accident, only a retic sign indicating that it is a bend and down road was installed, and no safety facility was installed except that.

(c) Guidelines for the installation of protective fences under the “Guidelines for the Installation and Management of Road Safety Facilities”;

According to the “Road Safety Facilities Installation and Management Guidelines” of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, a protective fence is to install a protective fence on the side of the road in principle, “if the road is deemed necessary in the section adjacent to the sea, lake, river, swamp, waterway, etc.” as the main purpose of the protection fence is to prevent a vehicle deviating from the normal main passage route from escaping from the road.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 4, and 5 (including each number), the result of the on-site inspection by this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff filed a claim for the amount equivalent to 50% of the insurance money paid to the non-party 2 and 3 as the claim for reimbursement, in light of all the circumstances, that the damage of the accident of this case was increased due to the defect in the road management without installing the protective fence on the road of this case, and the defendant is liable for the extended damage as above as the managing body of the road of this case.

(2) The defendant's assertion

In regard to this, the Defendant asserted that the management entity of the road of this case is not a local public corporation, which is the executor of the mining area development project, and that, in light of the structure, status and utilization of the road of this case, and expenses for the installation of the protection fence, the installation of the protection fence cannot be viewed as a defect in the road management. ③ Even if the Defendant is responsible for the fault of Nonparty 1, the Defendant’s liability does not exceed 50% because the over-speed of Nonparty 1 is the

B. Defendant’s liability

(1) The managing body of the road of this case

According to the above facts, there is no doubt about the fact that the defendant was the managing body of the road of this case since 2000, and even if the road of this case was included in the site of the luminous Housing Development Project, as long as the defendant was still offered for the passage of the general public and actually was doing snow removal work, the defendant is the managing body of the road of this case at the time of the accident of this case.

(2) Whether the road management of the instant case was defective

As seen in Section 1-b (2) above, the road of this case is be be bend, narrow, narrow, and there is a large risk of road escape accidents because the vehicle deviates from the reservoir without any side length. Despite the high risk of a wing accident, if the vehicle deviates from the road, it was cut to the reservoir and did not have any safety facilities. According to the above Section 1-c above, if it is deemed necessary in the section adjacent to the ocean, lake, river, lake, marsh, waterway, etc., the road of this case is a principle of installing a protection fence, it can be deemed that there is an objective lack of safety. In light of the above structure of the road of this case, it cannot be said that there was no possibility of expectation about the occurrence of the wing accident, and the cost and effort to install the protection fence of this case cannot be deemed to have been excessive so that the defendant cannot be viewed to have avoided the accident of this case, which is a manager of the road of this case, and therefore, it cannot be viewed that there is no possibility for the defendant to avoid the accident of this case.

(3) The defendant's liability

As the result of the death of Nonparty 2 and 3 was due to the defect in the road of this case, the Defendant is liable to compensate Nonparty 2 and 3, the injured party, for the amount of money corresponding to the Defendant’s contribution among the damages caused by the accident of this case.

In addition, in light of the witness's statement (Evidence No. 7-3) that the instant vehicle driven at the reservoir was driven up and the occurrence of other accidents does not seem to have occurred as the instant vehicle was dissatisfed on the new wall (the Defendant alleged that Nonparty 1's speed was the main reason for the instant accident, but in light of the witness's statement (Evidence No. 7-73) that the instant vehicle driven at a speed of 20km up at a speed and caused the instant accident, it is not sufficient to recognize that Nonparty 1 was under speeded up to four parts of the speed of the instant vehicle driven at the reservoir (Evidence No. 7-76). If only the protective fence was installed, it appears that the instant accident would not have occurred, and in full view of all other circumstances as to the instant accident and the occurrence of damage therefrom, the Defendant's liability for the damage caused by the instant accident should be deemed to have been 50%.

C. The defendant's duty of indemnity

As such, the Defendant is obligated to compensate Nonparty 2 and 3 for 50% of the damages arising from the instant accident. The Plaintiff paid the insurance proceeds of KRW 44,396,00 to Nonparty 2’s heir, and KRW 48,076,920 to Nonparty 3’s heir, respectively, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff an indemnity amounting to 50% of the above insurance proceeds. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff an indemnity amounting to 46,236,460 won [=1/2 of the insurance proceeds against Nonparty 2] + 24,038,460 won (one half of the insurance proceeds against Nonparty 3) + 22,198,000 won per annum from the day following the date of payment to the date of payment, to the date of payment of the insurance proceeds of KRW 22,198,00,000 per annum from February 3, 2009 to the date of payment, as prescribed by the Civil Act.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as there is no ground.

Judge Lee Lee Jae-soo