2014Na9918 Claims

Samsung Fire Insurance Co., Ltd.

Jung-gu Seoul Central District Court Decision 29 Guro 29 (Guro 1-A)

The 409 Samsung Fire Building 11th floor compensation as in the Seocho-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

inside the representative director 00

Attorney state-ho-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Korea

The Minister of Justice of the Republic of Korea

Litigation Performers 00

Jeonju District Court Decision 2014 Ghana6008 Decided September 19, 2014

August 24, 2015

September 21, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall be KRW 5,303,710 and a copy of the complaint of this case against the plaintiff.

The interest rate of 20% per annum shall be paid from the day after this service to the day of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 7, 2013, 2013: around 55: around 949738, when driving a Corrodo-type vehicle, which was driven by the Corrodo-type Do-type Do-type Do-type Do-type Do-type Do-type Do-type Do-type Do-type Do-type Do-type Do-type Do-type Do-type Do-type Do-type Do-type Do-type Do-type Do-type Do-type Do-type Do-type Do-type Do-type Do-type Do-type Do-type Do-type 23 in front of the previous North Korean Do-type Do-type Do-type Do-type.

B. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automatic comprehensive insurance contract with 00 on the instant vehicle, and paid insurance proceeds of KRW 10,607, 420 to 00 on the instant accident from June 25, 2013 to April 27, 2014.

C. The accident site of this case is located at the 23th national highways and Gamb. The road of this case is about 16 meters in length, and both sides of the road above the waterway, and the protection fence is not installed. On the other hand, the road of this case, which is the accident site, is the straight line with about 2.6 km at the speed of 60 meters per hour, and there are no particular factors that interfere with the driver's needs to secure. On the day of the accident of this case, the weather was clear.

(d) The provisions pertaining to the installation of protective fences are as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, evidence 2, evidence 3 through 5, each entry of evidence 7, 8, 10, and 11, entry of evidence 1 to 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The accident site of this case is not installed with a protective fence to prevent the fall of the farm road, and there is a lack of stability to be equipped in the road. Thus, the defendant, the managing authority of the road of this case, is liable to compensate for the accident of this case to 00 with respect to the defects in the construction and management of the public structure, and the plaintiff is the insurer for damages to the defendant in subrogation of 00 as the insurer.

section 31 of this title.

B. Determination

"Defects in the construction and management of public structures" under Article 5 (1) of the State Compensation Act means the state in which the public structures offered for public purposes do not have safety ordinarily in accordance with their use.

The term "public structures" refers to the construction and management of public structures. It cannot be readily concluded that there is a defect in the construction or management of public structures on the ground that the construction or management of public structures does not have high level of safety to the extent that they always maintain a clean condition. The duty to take protective measures imposed on the installer or manager of public structures is based on the degree generally required by social norms in proportion to the danger of the public structures. As such, in the case of roads which are public structures, the relationship with other public facilities or the principal financial, human, physical, etc. of the person who installs it and installs it and who uses it is common sense of

It is sufficient to have relative safety expected to have an orderly method of use (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da9158 delivered on August 23, 2002, etc.).

According to the above facts, the accident site of this case is the Do branch of national highways and agricultural roads.

In other words, it can be seen that there is no protective fence installed on both sides.

However, in view of the following circumstances revealed by the purport of the above facts and the entire pleadings, it is insufficient to view that there was a defect in the construction and management of the road in the location of the instant accident to the Defendant solely on the fact that the Defendant did not install a protective fence at the location of the instant accident.

otherwise, there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

1) The instant accident is delayed following the Trackor who was driven by 00 alone while driving by 00.

Detection and fall into a opposite farm road beyond the central line by negligence of rapid operation of hand;

F. If 00 has driven a light with a view to her steering room and operating the steering gear properly, the driver shall leave the line and shall not fall in excess of the median line and shall not fall in an opposite farm channel.

It seems that the operation could have been previously operated.

2) On the road that is the accident site of this case, approximately 2.6 km of the section at the speed of 60 km per hour is narrow straight lines without slope, and there is no particular element to obstruct drivers from securing their view view, and the trend of the road on the farm road.

There is no evidence that the occurrence of another accident that a motor vehicle crashs at the location of the accident in this case is difficult to anticipate the decline.

3) The main reason behind the installation of a protective fence on a road near a waterway, etc. is outside the road.

The reason is that the vehicle can become the cause of a large accident due to the collapse of the vehicle outside of the area, and the location of the accident in this case.

Gamcheon seems to have no possibility of submersion as a farming channel.

4) Protective fences conflict with protective fences, rather than that vehicles leave the road;

In principle, if it is deemed that this accident may reduce its reputation

C. However, in the case of the accident site of this case, the protection fence is merely 16 meters long of the waterway width.

The minimum length is less than 60m, and if a short protective fence is installed, it would be structurally weak, and the sn beamline cutting part would be able to pass through a vehicle, and the sn beam light will be able to pass through a vehicle.

It is not good in terms of the Do.

5) At the vicinity of the accident site of this case, it is connected by both sides of the road, resulting in a road next to the road.

It is also difficult to install a protective fence of more than 60 meters in length.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be this.

As the conclusion is reasonable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judgment of the presiding judge

Judges Kim Sung-hoon

Judges Jeong-ho