The judgment below

Among them, the part against the defendant against the plaintiff A and the remaining part against the plaintiff shall be reversed, and this part shall be reversed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

If the victim has been negligent with regard to the occurrence or expansion of damage caused by a tort, such cause shall be taken into account as a matter of course in determining the scope of compensation for damage by the perpetrator, and when calculating the ratio of negligence by both parties, all circumstances related to the occurrence of the accident shall be fully considered in light of the purpose of the comparative negligence

In addition, the fact-finding or the proportion of the grounds for offsetting negligence is, in principle, the discretionary authority of the fact-finding court, but it shall not be remarkably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da6873, Feb. 27, 2004). The lower court acknowledged the Defendant’s liability for damages based on the facts and circumstances stated in its reasoning. After Plaintiff A’s negligence was concurrent with that of driving a bicycle while under the influence of alcohol at night, and the accident of this case occurred. This circumstance appears to have affected the occurrence and expansion of damage caused by the accident of this case, and thus, the Defendant’s liability was limited to 60% by recognizing the ratio of negligence of Plaintiff A to 40%.

However, according to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the plaintiff A neglected the duty of Jeonju City on December 21, 2008 to stop riding and unloading of bicycles at meetings of the bicycle club around 23:10 on the same day, and was faced with the accident of this case by shocking it without discovering about approximately 25cm in diameter, about 33 cm in height, and caused the accident by shocking it. On the other hand, the defendant, as a manager of the above road, was exempted from luminous paints on the color of the above vehicle installed by the defendant, and the height, diameter, and distance does not meet the standards for related facilities, and materials do not have any reflect power as stone.