1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

The defendant's ground of appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance shows the evidence submitted in the court of first instance (each of the evidence No. 4 and 5). The fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified.

Therefore, the reasoning of this court concerning this case is as follows, except for adding a judgment on the argument emphasized by the defendant in the trial as set forth in paragraph (2) below, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

In light of the fact that the circumstances leading up to the occurrence of the instant accident are very unusual, the Defendant asserts that the instant road was unable to anticipate the crash accident by the vehicle operation method, such as the Deceased, and that the installer and manager of the public structure does not constitute a case where the manager of the public structure failed to fulfill his duty to take protective measures to the extent required by social norms in proportion to the risk of the public structure.

However, in determining the defects in the construction and management of public structures such as the road of this case, the term "the predictability of the occurrence of the accident" means the predictability of the possibility of the fall accident, etc. due to the existence of safety devices, such as the surrounding topography and guardrails, etc. of the road of this case, and it does not mean the predictability of all detailed circumstances of the occurrence of the accident, as alleged by the defendant.

However, as appropriate in the first instance court, the road of this case was located at the top part of the downhill road, and the river was coming down immediately below. However, even though there was a low load of approximately 2.4 meters from the river to the road of this case, there were no safety facilities such as a curbstone or a drails to prevent the fall, the defendant, who is the installer and manager of the road of this case, is the same as the accident of this case.