Where a traffic safety defect is caused by an act of a third party after the construction of a road, the standards for determining whether there is a defect in the management and preservation of the road.

Article 758(1) of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff

Korea Highway Corporation (Attorney Wang-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daegu District Court Decision 99Na7501 delivered on June 28, 2000

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The court below is justified in finding the accident details of this case and the overall situation of the point of accident as stated in its reasoning, and there is no error in violation of the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In full view of the facts acknowledged by the court below and the facts revealed in the present case, it cannot be viewed that the Defendant’s failure to assign a manual signaler or monitor to the point of accident in this case, which is an expressway expansion section, constitutes a tort under Article 750 of the Civil Act. The judgment below to the same purport is correct, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Whether there is a defect in the construction or maintenance of a road shall be determined in detail in accordance with social norms by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the location, form, structure, traffic volume, situation at the time of an accident, the original purpose of use of the road, location and shape of the road, etc. If a traffic safety defect, which is the original purpose of the road, occurs due to an act of a third party after the construction of the road, it cannot be deemed that there is a defect in the preservation of the road only if the act of the third party, which is the original purpose of the road, has a defect. In full view of all the circumstances such as the structure, location, environment, and current use of the road concerned, the determination of whether there is a defect in the preservation of the road by removing such defect and restoring it to the original state shall be made by taking into account individual and specific consideration whether there is a defect in the maintenance of the road, even though the person responsible for the preservation of the road can have neglected it, from an objective point of view of the safety defect in time and place (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da97Da96, Sept.

In the same purport, the court below held that, around 03:05 on August 5, 1998, the non-party driven a car at a point of 139.5 km in Seoul located at the seat point of 139.5km in the border road that the defendant occupied and managed by the defendant, and the accident of this case occurred due to the shock of plastic drums for inducing the vehicle installed in the central separation zone for the extension of the highway, and the defendant patroled the accident point of this case 14 minutes prior to the accident of this case and did not find that the above drum was used at that time and place, and therefore, the defendant's safe keeping of the above drum which was used at the time of the accident of this case was almost impossible at that time and location, and there was no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as argued in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Zwon (Presiding Justice)