The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

(a) If the administrative authority of a higher local government with respect to the maintenance and management of roads was delegated to the lower local government head under the Ordinance on Delegation of Administrative Authority, it is not a mere internal delegation of authority.

In the case of delegation by an agency, the subordinate head of a local government delegated to him/her is to carry out the affairs in the status of an administrative agency affiliated with a higher local government.

Therefore, if a public official belonging to a local government assisting the head of a local government intentionally or negligently causes damage to another person in the course of performing delegated affairs, or damages to another person due to a defect in a public structure established and managed by delegated affairs, the superior local government entrusted with authority shall be liable

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da2131, Nov. 8, 1996; 99Da11120, Jun. 25, 1999). Meanwhile, “defect in the construction or management of a public structure” under Article 5(1) of the State Compensation Act refers to a state in which the public structure fails to have safety requirements for its ordinary use.

In a case where a traffic safety defect, which is the original purpose of the road, is discovered after the construction of the road, due to the act of a third party, the existence of the defect must be determined by individually and specifically examining whether the defect can be removed and restored to the original state even though it is left, in full view of all the circumstances, such as the structure, location, environment and current use of the road

As a result, if the safety defect of a road is objectively and objectively in time and place and the situation where the possession and management of the manager is not possible, the management defect may not be recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da15917, Sept. 27, 2002).

(b).