[1] The meaning of defects in the construction and management of public structures under Article 5 (1) of the State Compensation Act and the criteria for its determination

[2] The case holding that a defect in the installation or management of a signal apparatus cannot be recognized solely on the ground that the red signal of the signal apparatus was defective in its function, in case where the signal of the direction of the intersection was driven as it is, while the signal of the direction of the intersection was cut off by a cross line, and it was in conflict with the vehicle entering the intersection in accordance with the other direction direction signals

[1] The defects in the construction or management of a public structure under Article 5 (1) of the State Compensation Act refer to the state in which the public structure is not equipped with safety ordinarily required for its use. The defects in the construction or management of the public structure can not be said to have any defects in the construction or management of the public structure merely because the public structure is not in a perfect condition and has any defects in its function. In determining whether the safety is satisfied, the criteria should be taken to determine whether the construction manager has fulfilled the duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the danger of the public structure by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as the use of the public structure in question, the present state of the place of installation and the situation of its use, etc.

[2] The case holding that a defect in the installation or management of a signal apparatus cannot be recognized solely on the ground that the red signal of the signal apparatus was defective in its function, in case where the signal of the direction of the intersection was driven as it is, while the signal of the direction of the intersection was cut off by a signal of another direction, and it was in conflict with the vehicle entering the intersection in accordance with the other direction direction signals

[1] Article 5 (1) of the State Compensation Act / [2] Article 5 (1) of the State Compensation Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Da3243 delivered on September 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 2864), Supreme Court Decision 94Da16328 delivered on October 28, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 3112), Supreme Court Decision 96Da54102 delivered on May 16, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 1834)

Dongbu Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Lee Ho-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul Special Metropolitan City (General Law Firm, Attorneys Lee Im-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 99Na11969 delivered on August 10, 1999

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, since it is difficult for the defendant to find out that the accident of this case caused injury to the non-party 3 while driving the motor vehicle owned by the non-party 1 on July 19, 196 by the non-party 0:35, which was caused by the non-party 3 driver's mispercing the traffic signal at the non-party 3, the defendant is liable to compensate the damages suffered by the non-party 3 as joint tortfeasor due to the accident of this case and the damage caused by the non-party 2 caused by the non-party 1's destruction of the above vehicle, etc., and it is difficult for the non-party 3 and the non-party 2, who was exempted by the payment of insurance proceeds to the non-party 2, to find out that the non-party 1 was not obliged to pay an amount equivalent to 50% of the negligence ratio out of the insurance proceeds paid by the plaintiff, and the non-party 1 was not obliged to maintain the traffic signal in its own way.

2. The defects in the construction or management of a public structure under Article 5 (1) of the State Compensation Act refer to the state in which the public structure is not equipped with safety ordinarily required for its use. The defects in the construction or management of the public structure can not be said to have any defects in the construction or management of the public structure merely because the public structure is not completely in a state of complete construction and has any defects in its function. In determining whether the safety has been satisfied, the criteria should be taken to determine whether the construction manager has fulfilled the duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the danger of the public structure in light of the purpose of use of the public structure, the current status of the construction site, and the situation of the use thereof, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da32434, Sept. 14, 1992; 2004Da16964, Apr. 16, 1968).

In light of the facts stated in its holding, such as the situation of the installation of signal apparatus in Seoul Special Metropolitan City discharged from military service, the method of responding to the occurrence of the accident, and the fact that the report of the breakdown of the signal apparatus in this case was not received before the occurrence of the accident, etc., even if the signal apparatus in the direction of crossing with the facts indicated in its holding was displayed, it cannot be said that the Defendant did not know that the red signal in this case was sent to a crosssection where traffic is not controlled by the signal apparatus, or that the driver of the vehicle must follow the method of passage through the crosssection under Article 22 (4) through (7) of the Road Traffic Act even if the driver of the vehicle wants to drive the intersection where traffic is not controlled by the signal apparatus, it cannot be said that the Defendant failed to know that the red signal in this case was sent to a crosssection, or that there was a defect in the function of the signal apparatus in this case, and therefore, it cannot be said that the Defendant could not have any defect in the function of the signal apparatus in this case.

In the same purport, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the Defendant cannot be liable for damages arising from the instant accident. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the liability for damages arising from a defect in the construction or management of public structures, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as otherwise alleged in

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff-Appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)