Plaintiff 1 and three others (Law Firm Shinsung, Attorney Kang Dong-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Gangwon-do et al. (Law Firm Multi-Hunting et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

May 3, 2013

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The defendants pay to each of the plaintiffs 110,112,032 won, 2108,012,032 won, 3, and 4 respectively, 5,000,000 won, and 20% per annum from July 29, 2012 to the date of the pronouncement of this case, and 5% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 28, 2012, at around 15:00 on July 28, 2012, the deceased Nonparty 5 (hereinafter “the deceased”) attended the training conference hosted by Nonparty ○○○ school, and 30 trainees, and died of water in the water while playing water in the front of the Heung-gun Park, Yacheon-gun, Gangwon-do (hereinafter “the instant river”).

B. The instant river, as a local river, is a river management agency by the Governor of Gangwon-do, who is the Mayor/Do Governor within his/her jurisdiction, pursuant to Article 8(2) of the River Act, is responsible for the management of the river, and the duties such as the maintenance and repair of local rivers and the inspection of the status of river management are delegated to the head of Jung-do.

C. The Plaintiff 1 and 2 are the parents of the Deceased, the Plaintiffs 3 and 4 are the siblings of the Deceased.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 10 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The average depth of the river of this case is about 1.5 meters to knee height, while the depth of the location where the accident of this case occurred is about 1.5 meters to 2 meters. Thus, the defendants in charge of the maintenance and management of the river of this case have been negligent in failing to take measures such as prohibiting water play in the vicinity of the dangerous area or installing a risk mark or tag, etc., but the depth of the point where the accident of this case was occurred due to the negligence of the defendants. Since the accident of this case occurred due to the negligence of the defendants, the defendant Do-do is liable to compensate the plaintiffs who are the bereaved family members of each deceased, pursuant to Article 6 (1) of the State Compensation Act, pursuant to Article 5 (1) of the State Compensation Act, and the defendant Y-gun is liable to pay the plaintiff 1 the compensation for damages to the plaintiffs 10,112,032 won, and the plaintiff 2 to the plaintiff 108,012,032 won, 3,400 won and damages for delay.

B. The defendants' assertion

The Defendants established and implemented a variety of plans to prevent water play accidents in the river, and in particular, Defendant Ye-gun, at the entrance, etc. of Heung-gun, located adjacent to the river of this case, installed warning signs, placards, etc. to prevent water play safety accidents and issued a warning to the depth of the river of this case, and thus, it appears that the above warning was not properly viewed on the wind moving to the river of this case through a forest path, not through the entrance of the river created by the Deceased, but through the forest path. Furthermore, the Defendants, including the Deceased, did not bear any responsibility for the death of the deceased, because they were able to move to the Yellow Ba (the "Yek-bak Ba"), move to the vicinity of the river where the instant accident occurred, without being equipped with safety equipment with knowledge that the depth of the water play is deep.

3. Determination

A. According to the above facts, as a person in charge of the maintenance and management of the river of this case, the defendant Jung-do is responsible for the maintenance and management of the river of this case as a person in charge of the maintenance and management of the river of this case, and the person entrusted with the maintenance and management of the river of this case as a person entrusted with the maintenance and management of the river of this case. Therefore, if the causation between the river of this case and the accident of this case is acknowledged, the defendant Jung-do shall be responsible for the expenses entrusted by the agency pursuant to Article 5(1) of the State Compensation Act as a person entrusted with the duties of the agency pursuant to Article 6(1) of the same Act. (On the other hand, the defendant Jung-do did not collect fees by the method of selling garbage bags instead of admission fees, but this is merely for preventing waste generation and environmental conservation under the Wastes Control Act, and it does not include the maintenance and management of the river of this case, but it does not accept the request for the maintenance and management of the river of this case as well as the maintenance and management of the river of this case Ordinance of this case.

B. Next, we examine whether there is any defect in installation and management of the instant river.

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. However, the construction or management of the public structure cannot be deemed defective merely because the public structure is not completely in a state of completeness and has any defects in its function. In determining whether the public structure is equipped with safety above, the standard should be determined to determine whether the installer or 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 in question and the current status of the installation and its use, comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as the relationship with the public structure in question and the financial, human and physical restrictions of the person who installs and manages it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Da8903, Sept. 25, 2008; 2005Da2655, Feb. 25, 2007).

2) In light of the above legal principles, it is recognized that: (a) the deceased was on the yellow boom located at the edge of the river of this case; (b) died of the water in the middle of the water playing; and (c) there was no safety sign or tag around the yellow boom; and (d) there was no safety sign or tag around the yellow boom.

However, the following facts are acknowledged in full view of the evidence Nos. 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 10, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 14, Eul evidence Nos. 3, Eul evidence Nos. 3, Eul evidence Nos. 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 12, the testimony of the witness non-party Nos. 4, and the fact-finding results of the inquiry to the chief of the fleet chief of the court.

A) The instant river does not reach the average depth of the river running side of Heung Park, and was created within Heung Park Park, which can enter the instant river on the road, but it is possible to approach the instant river to the instant river by passing through the surrounding forests, as it does not have high banks installed by the river side and does not boom the forests created within the amusement park, as it is difficult to view the surrounding forests.

B) On June 13, 2012, the Defendant Jong-gun, which was particularly managed to create a re-path of wages, was designated and publicly announced as a village management resort, and is promoting as one of the well-known scenic places. However, there was no special management office or set up user fees, and instead, it was collected by the residents of the village in charge of the management. However, it is substituted for the collection of user fees to sell garbage bags.

C) On the other hand, at the entrance of Heung Park Park, a warning sign and banner containing the phrase “a water play caution,” and the phrase “a water depth caution,” shall be installed at the entrance of Heung Park Park,” under the name of the head of the relevant Gun, as follows. On the side, the front door of the entrance of Heung Park Park Park Park, a banner stating that “a water-saving safety manual shall be observed for the prevention of accidents” is installed, and “a water-saving equipment to receive life jackets, life jackets, and life jackets shall be heavy,” and “a water-saving safety manual shall be observed for the prevention of accidents” is installed, and the paid manager shall patrol the river of this case every day and confirm the safety situation.

In the area where the depth of water is highly likely to cause safety accidents, this area shall observe the following matters and see the plenary session. ① By entering the area where the table is installed, the head of the party in charge of the election of the party in charge of the election of the party in charge of the election of the party in charge of the election of the party in charge of the election of the party in charge of the election of the party in charge of the election of the party in charge of the election of the party in charge of the election of the party in charge of the election of the party in charge of the election of the party in charge of the election of the party in charge of the election of the party

D) On June 26, 2012, Defendant Jong-gun inspected the surrounding environment improvement conditions of Heung Park and measures to prevent water play safety accidents. At that time, only it was pointed out that it was equipped with garbage separation and removal containers, and there was no complementary matters regarding the prevention and disposal of safety accidents.

E) Yellow boom, where the instant accident occurred, is a natural stone, protruding the instant river from the legal surface of 415 lines of local highways located adjacent to Heung Park, to the river of this case, the height from the surface of the river of up to 5 to 6 meters. The lower part below is 1.5 to 2 meters deep, and the depth of the flow of the river is deep, and the flow of the water at the upper reaches the water of the upstream, and is accessible to the yellow boom on the road of this case.

F) The Deceased et al. et al., including the Deceased, did not use the way to be created in the amusement park, and accessed the instant river into the river beyond the bank installed in the river by passing through the forests. At the same time, the instant river was moved to the area near the yellow boom located in the roadside where the river in this case was obstructed by finding a deep place to divers into the river, and the depth of the river was defryed at the place made by the cement of the Yellow boom, and the depth was defiened, and the depth was defiened, and the depth of the river was defiened into the middle sloping part of the Yellow sloping sloping.

G) Meanwhile, Nonparty 2, who participated in the training conference to guide all students in ice ice, checked the water depth of students at the place where the students can ice ice, and informed Nonparty 3 and other neighboring students of the water level up to the vicinity of the water level and the water level up to the yellow boom.

H) The Deceased and their daily activities decided to play a water play for a limited time, and the last one, and the Nonparty 1 did not get out of the water (at first, Nonparty 1 did not go out of the water, but did not come out of the horse to come out of the water). After that, the Deceased and Nonparty 6 went out of the water in order, the deceased and Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 6 were rescued, and the Deceased were rescued, and they were eventually killed.

I) Since 2009, there was no aquatic accident in the vicinity of the Heung Park before the instant accident occurred.

위와 같은 인정사실에 위 각 증거 등에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정 즉, ① 자연영조물로서의 하천은 원래 이를 설치할 것인지에 대한 선택의 여지가 없고, 그 유역의 광범위성과 유수의 상황에 따른 하상의 가변성 등으로 인하여 익사사고에 대비한 하천 자체의 위험관리에는 일정한 한계가 있을 수밖에 없는 점, ② 흥터유원지는 하천 자체보다는 그 주변에 조성된 황장목 군락지를 위주로 하는 관광지로서 피고 정선군 역시 유원지 내에 조성되어 있는 숲을 중점적으로 홍보하고 있을 뿐 이 사건 하천에 대한 홍보를 별도로 하고 있지 않은 것으로 보이고, 이 사건 하천 및 흥터유원지의 규모나 주변 상황(별도의 주차장, 관리사무소가 설치되지도 않고 인근에 음식점 등이 영업을 하고 있는 상황도 아니었으며, 단지 부녀회에서 비닐하우스를 설치하고 커피와 라면을 파는 정도이다) 등에 비추어 볼 때 이용객이 많지 않은 것으로 보이며, 다만 레일바이크를 타러 가는 길목에 위치하고 있어 레일바이크를 타러 오는 관광객이 이동하는 길에 들러 잠시 쉬면서 하천 주변에서 물놀이를 하는 용도로 주로 이용되었던 것으로 보이는 점, ③ 흥터유원지 입구 및 흥터유원지에서 이 사건 하천으로 들어가는 입구에는 물놀이를 금지하는 경고 문구가 기재된 현수막 등이 여러 개 설치되어 있었으나 망인을 비롯한 일행들은 점심식사 후 조성된 길이 아닌 숲을 통과하여 하천제방을 넘어가는 방법으로 이 사건 사고 발생 지점까지 이동하여 위와 같은 경고표지판을 보지 못한 것으로 보이는 바, 이와 같이 정해진 길이 아닌 곳으로 이동할 것까지 예상하여 현수막 등의 안전시설을 설치할 것을 피고들에게 기대하기는 어려울 뿐만 아니라 흥터유원지 인근 숲은 나무가 무성하지 아니하여 충분히 시야가 확보되는 곳이므로, 비록 숲길을 통해 이동하였다 하더라도 충분히 흥터유원지 부근에 설치된 현수막 등을 볼 수 있었을 것으로 보이는 점(더군다나 이 사건 사고가 발생한 황새바위 부근에서도 현수막의 내용을 확인할 수 있다), ④ 한편 이 사건 하천은 황새바위 부근을 제외한 나머지 부분의 평균 수심이 어른 무릎 정도에도 미치지 아니하여 익사의 위험이 높지 않을 뿐 아니라 2009.경부터 이 사건 사고가 발생하기 전까지 수난사고가 한차례도 발생하지 않아 그 안전사고의 발생 가능성이 상대적으로 낮다고 보이고, 황새바위는 이 사건 하천 건너편에 위치하여 있고(이 사건 하천의 폭은 약 20미터에 이른다), 그에 대한 진입은 반대편 도로를 통하여 할 수 있도록 되어 있었으므로, 피고들로서는 이용객들이 건너편 황새바위 부근까지 이동하여 그 곳에서 다이빙을 하는 방법으로 물놀이를 할 것이라고 예측하기는 어려웠을 것으로 보이는 점, ⑤ 망인을 비롯한 그 일행이 물놀이를 하기 전 소외 2가 황새바위 부근의 수심을 확인한 후 학생들에게 목까지 물이 차고 황새바위 쪽으로 가면 그 수심이 더욱 깊어진다는 사실을 알려 주었을 뿐 아니라 망인은 다이빙을 하기 위하여 수심이 깊은 곳을 찾아 황새바위까지 이동한 것이었으므로, 비록 피고들이 황새바위 부근의 수심이 깊다는 사실을 구체적으로 적시하지 않고 그 부근에 부표를 설치하지 않았다 하더라도 이미 망인은 다이빙을 하기 이전에 황새바위의 수심이 어느 정도임을 알고 있었던 점(이 사건 사고 발생 무렵 촬영된 사진에 의하면, 이 사건 사고 발생 당시 이 사건 하천의 물이 육안으로 충분히 수심을 확인할 수 있을 정도로 매우 맑았음을 알 수 있다), ⑥ 그럼에도 불구하고 망인을 비롯한 그 일행은 아무런 안전장구도 갖추지 아니한 채 황새바위에서 이 사건 하천으로 뛰어들며 물놀이를 한 점, ⑦ 한편 이 사건 사고는 물놀이를 시작한 후 약 한 시간이 경과한 이후에 발생하였는바, 한 시간이 경과할 때까지 아무런 안전사고가 발생하지 않았을 뿐만 아니라 한 시간여의 물놀이로 인하여 체력적으로 상당히 지쳐있던 망인이 함께 물에 빠진 소외 1, 6과 물속에서 서로 얽히는 바람에 물에서 빠져나오지 못하고 사망한 것으로 보이는 점 등을 보태어 보면, 피고들에게 이 사건 하천이 갖는 위험성에 비례하여 사회통념상 일반적으로 요구되는 정도의 안전조치의무를 다하지 아니한 잘못이 있다고 보기 어려우므로, 이 사건 하천의 설치, 관리상 어떠한 하자가 있다고 할 수 없고, 설령 이 사건 사고가 발생한 황새바위 부근에 부표 내지 경고표지판 등을 설치하지 않은 것을 피고들의 과실로 본다 하더라도 이 사건 사고는 황새바위 부근의 수심이 깊다는 사실을 알면서도 일부러 다이빙을 하기 위하여 그곳으로 이동하여 아무런 안전장비도 착용하지 않은 채 한 시간여 동안이나 다이빙을 하며 물놀이를 한 망인의 과실에 의하여 발생하였다고 봄이 상당하므로, 피고들의 과실과 이 사건 사고 사이의 인과관계를 인정하기도 어렵다.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, there is a defect in the installation and management of the river of this case, and the plaintiffs' claim of this case premised on the occurrence of the accident of this case is without merit without further examining the remaining points.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed in entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Judge)