beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 6,598,536; (b) KRW 500,000 to Plaintiff A; and (c) respectively, from October 27, 2013 to February 6, 2015 to Plaintiff B.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On October 27, 2013, Plaintiff A, a resident of the Daejeon Seo-gu Daejeon Housing Co., Ltd., was inflicted an injury on a bridge installed in the said housing flowing side at night (hereinafter “instant bridge”) and falling under approximately 1.5 meters below the left-hand leg and then falling under approximately 1.5 meters below the end of the instant bridge, and suffered an injury, such as crushing and crushing of the upper-hand leg.
(hereinafter “instant accident”). B.
Plaintiff
B is the wife of Plaintiff A.
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 3 (including each number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of the verification by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The plaintiffs' assertion that the defendant, as the building manager and manager of the instant bridge, failed to perform his/her duty of care to install railrails, signboards, and street lamps so that the instant bridge can safely pass through at night, and caused the plaintiff A to undergo the instant accident. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for damages caused by the instant accident pursuant to Article 5 of the State Compensation Act.
B. Determination 1) In full view of whether the instant bridge falls under the public structures built and managed by the Defendant, Gap evidence Nos. 5, witness D’s testimony, and the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of this court’s verification, it is recognized that the instant bridge is located in the area of 295 square meters owned by the Republic of Korea, Daejeon Seo-gu, Daejeon. The said land is the land managed by the Defendant entrusted by the Republic of Korea. The Defendant constructed the instant bridge by expanding the width and length of the instant bridge to the existing bridge, which was lost for a significant part of the flood due to a flood due to around 198, by constructing the said bridge again, around 198.
According to the above facts of recognition, the bridge of this case is a public structure established and managed by the defendant.