(영문) 서울고등법원 2008.9.24.선고 2006나27903 판결

1. (a) The part against the above plaintiffs, which constitutes an additional payment order under the following among the part against plaintiffs 5, 24, 30, and 32 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 5, 24, 30, and 32 an amount of money stated in the separate appellate brief "attached Form" and the amount calculated by applying 5% per annum from August 1, 1999 to September 24, 2008 and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. Each of the remaining appeals filed by Plaintiffs 5, 24, 30, and 32 and the appeal filed by the Defendant against Plaintiffs 5, 24, 30, and 32 are dismissed.

2. The portion of the Plaintiff 1 through 4, 6 through 23, 25 through 36, including the claim filed by the Plaintiff 19, 22, 23, 25, 27 through 29, as follows, with the exception of the Plaintiff 5, 24, 30, and 32 in the order of the judgment of the first instance.

A. As to each of the money stated in the column of "the sum of cited amounts" in the attached Form to Plaintiffs 19, 22, 23, 25, 27 through 29 and each of the money stated in the column of "the amount for the first instance court" in the attached Form 1 among them, the defendant shall be from August 1, 199 to January 206.

26. To the end, 5% per annum, 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment, and 5% per annum from August 1, 1999 to September 24, 2008, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 1 through 4, 6 through 18, 20, 21, 26, 31, and 33 through 36 each amount in the column of "attached Form" and the amount calculated by applying 5% per annum from August 1, 1999 to September 24, 2008 and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

C. Plaintiffs 1 through 4, 6 through 23, 25 through 29, 31, and 33 through 36 are dismissed, respectively.

3. Three minutes of the total litigation cost between the plaintiffs and the defendant are assessed against the plaintiffs, and the remainder is assessed against the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1-A(b) and Section 2-A(b) may be provisionally executed.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs each amount stated in the sum of the claim amounts in the separate sheet with respect to each amount stated in the separate sheet.

From the date of rendering a judgment in the first instance to the date of rendering a judgment, 5% per annum and from the following day to the date of full payment.

20% interest shall be paid in 20% interest (the plaintiffs shall be subject to the lawsuit against Gyeonggi-do and Socheon-gun at the trial).

(1) The plaintiff 1, 2, 4 through 7, 9 through 11, 14, 17, 18, 20, 35, and 36 were withdrawn from the trial; the plaintiff 1, 2, 4 through 7, 9 through 11, 1

Plaintiffs 3, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 21 through 34 have reduced the purport of the Gu, and claim in the trial.

(2) The plaintiff 3, 8, 19, 22, 23, 25 through 29, 31, 33, and 34 filed an incidental appeal.

I see to the purport.

2. Purport of appeal

Plaintiff 1. Nonparty 1 and 22: Revocation of the part against the above plaintiffs in the judgment of the first instance. The defendant is the above won.

The appeal of the attached list shall be filed against the High Court with each of the money stated in the column of the appeal of the attached list and from August 1, 1999 to this case.

Until the date a judgment of the first instance is rendered, 5% per annum and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

pay any money calculated by the Corporation.

Defendant: Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part on Plaintiffs 2, 3, 8, 19, 22, 23, 25 through 29, 31, 33, and 34

B. A cancellation of this plaintiffs' claim against the defendant, all of which are dismissed, and plaintiff 1 in the judgment of the court of first instance

The part against the defendant against the defendant against 4 to 7, 9 through 18, 20, 21, 24, 30, 32, 35, and 36 shall be revoked;

All of the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. In the shape of the Han River basin (1) The Han River basin began with the commercial principles in the area of the Geum River basin in the Geum River basin in the Geum River basin in the Han River basin in the Han River basin, the flow length of which is extended to 13.4 km, the basin area 12,436.4 km, and the river basin area of the Han River basin in the area of the Han River basin in the area of the Han River basin in the area of the Han River basin in which the river width is narrow, and the river width is narrow, and the river width is fast.

(2) The Han River is in combination with the Yongcheon-do, (40.6 km per basin, 565 7 km per basin, 565 m2) coming from the flow of in the Yancheon-Gun as shown in the annexed drawing(s) and the annexed drawing(s) of the Newcheon-do, which flows out in the Yancheon-do area (37.5 km per basin, 339 m2 per basin), and there is about 13 km from the Yancheon-do, Hancheon-do, and the adjacent drawing(s) of 35 m2,000 from the adjacent drawing(s) to the adjacent drawing(s) of the 306 m2,000,000 from the adjacent drawing(s) to the river (36.8 km, 186 m2,000 m25 m25 m2,000 m25 m2,000 m25 m2.

B. On June 28, 1982, the Defendant filed an application for permission to use flowing water to Hancheon-gun for the construction, construction of the Hancheon-gun's Hancheon-gun's New Seocheon-gun's Hancheon-gun's Hancheon-gun's Hancheon-gun's Hancheon-gun's Hancheon-gun's Hancheon-gun's Hancheon-gun's Hancheon-gun's Hancheon-gun's Hancheon-gun's Hancheon-gun's Hancheon-gun's Hancheon-gun's Hancheon-gun's Hancheon-gun's construction site (attached Form 1), and its construction period (from March 1, 1983 to October 1984).

(2) On September 29, 1982, the Macheon-gun requested consultations or approval with respect to the military units, etc. of Socheon-gun, Gyeonggi-do, and the Army, and obtained the first prior approval from Gyeonggi-do on September 29, 1982. Since the liquidation area of Socheon-gun changed to the administrative district of Socheon-gun, the defendant submitted a plan for the permission of construction of a dam with the following contents of the application for permission to the Gyeongcheon-gun on March 1983.

Unlike the application for permission, there was a change in the type of dam, construction period, etc.

(3) On the other hand, the annexed drawing(5) In the area of Bacheon-gun, Mancheon-gun, Mayeongcheon-do, the area shall be

In an area located in the upstream of about 4km from the shores in the mountain basin near the mountain basin, it is a flooded area that flows out in order to prevent water flow coming from a residential area near the mountain basin in the middle of about 120 meters. The Defendant promised to compensate the Seocheon-gun-gun for flood damage caused by the construction of a dam in the area near the mountain basin in a relatively 120m, but there is a high possibility that the lower width of 500m upstreams at the upstream of the dam at the point below the river at the point of 70 to 80m in an average, and the water level in the Youngyeongcheon-cheon-do will prevent the flow of water flow coming from a residential area near the mountain basin in the middle of the mountain basin.

(4) On December 27, 1982, the defendant obtained a specific electricity business license from the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy, and April 1983.

22. On April 9, 1983, Gyeonggi-do obtained the final permission for the installation of river structures from the Seocheon-gun on April 27, 1983, after preparing a list and quantity of damages compensation in the river area and submitting a letter of statement to compensate for any flood damage in excess of the full water level after the construction of a dam, and planned to utilize the drain channel as an extraordinary flood flow. On June 1, 1983, Gyeonggi-do, after obtaining the second prior approval for the installation of the river structures, the construction of the river structures was commenced on April 27, 1983.

C. Design change of the annual dam (1) on December 13, 1983, the Defendant intended to use the initial drainage tunnel as an emergency irrigation channel after completion of the construction. However, it is difficult to complete the dam prior to the commencement of the construction due to the mixture of the soil and sand in the area to be excavated for drainage tunnels, the construction cost of which has been increased due to difficulty in the excavation of tunnels, and the delay in air, and (2) the anticipated base is 37 meters EL 31 to 32 meters as a result of an examination, and there is no feasibility due to the rapid increase in the volume treatment and the installation of structures. (6) The Defendant intended to use the initial drainage tunnel as an alternative irrigation channel after completion of the construction. (1) However, the Defendant submitted a request for design change of the existing dam to secure the volume of water to be discharged from the existing dam to 1,000 square meters, taking into account the changes in the size of water to be discharged from the new dam to 34,000 square meters before the installation of the new dam.

D. The completion of the construction of the Socheon Dam (1) was carried out by the Defendant, on May 2, 1985, applied for the approval of the use of the river crops of the Socheon Dam in the Socheon-gun on May 2, 1985, started commercial development on May 4, 1985, and obtained the approval of the use from the Socheon-gun on May 18, 1985.

(2) On July 8, 1985, the Defendant: (a) from the head of the dam management office, the head of the dam shall promote the adjustment of the volume of water by means of the limitation of water level or the preliminary bank outflow as a measure to prevent or mitigate disasters caused by the discharge of the dam at the time of a disaster or flood outbreak; (b) the designated flow quantity is at least 260 cm, and the planned flood is at least 5,230 cm; (c) the water level of the reservoir is at least 50 cm; (d) the water level of the reservoir is at least 45 m EL, the minimum water level is at a low-water level below the full water level until the water level reaches the full water level; and (d) the limited water level is at least 49 m from June 21 to September 20, 200 as the caretaker of the dam.

(3) On November 15, 1986, the defendant submitted to the Seocheon-gun a written statement of the residents' requirements with respect to the completion of the hydrocheon-gun's power plant construction are legitimate, in proximate causal relation with the construction of the hydrocheon-gun's power plant, and in the case of objective feasibility, it has obtained authorization of completion of river structures for Seocheon-gun's dam construction from the Seocheon-gun's 19 November 19, 1986, and the members of the Seocheon-gun Dam completed are as follows:

(4) According to the Ministry of Construction and Transportation’s 5th anniversary of the annual river basin construction project, the 10-year river basin construction project is a bridge crossing the Han River. (2) DB-18 (total weight 32.4 tons) among the 5th fivem sections of a dam. Thus, when a bridge reinforcement project is implemented after obtaining permission from the river management agency pursuant to the provisions of Article 25(1)4 of the River Act, the Defendant is obliged to do so on December 27, 1991. However, according to the 10-year river basin construction project, the 10-year river basin flood, 15-year river basin construction project is a 10-year river basin and 10-year river basin installation project (20-year river basin installation project), the 15-year river basin installation project is a 15-year river basin installation project, and the 10-year river size and 5-year river installation project is a 10-year river basin installation project.

E. On July 26, 1996, the collapse of a dam of 196 (1): the Gyeonggi-do Northern area and Seo-gu, Gangwon-do. on July 26, 1996: 0 to 11 July 28, 1996: 00, a 60-day centralized rain has continuously been recorded for about 70 hours in the area of the steel-gun located in the upper region of the Hancheon Dam, the upper region of which is 700mm (736mm in the steel-gu, 732mm in the Dong-dong, 732mm in the south, 70mm in the 196-year Gun, and 70mm in the 196-year Gun (687mm in the Eup, 67mm in the liquidation area, 67mm in the 196-day Do, and 97mm in the 194mm in the upper region of the Eup.

F. From August 3, 1996 to August 10, 1996, the Defendant: (a) notified the Defendant of the result of the safety inspection that, as seen above, approximately 90 meters of the Jincheon Dam on the part of the Jincheon Dam on the part of the Jincheon-gun, which was lost and collapsed, for the emergency restoration due to earth and sand erosion (construction with EL 48 meters to maintain the water level of the water-flowing water intake facilities on the dam on the river); (b) on August 13, 1996, Gyeonggi-do is likely to suffer from the flood of the 2nd River on August 13, 1996; and (c) on August 30, 196, the Gincheon-gun requested the Defendant to conduct the precise safety diagnosis and to make a decision on whether to reuse after conducting the comprehensive safety diagnosis; and (d) on August 30, 1996, the Defendant conducted the precise safety diagnosis at the same time as the Hyundai Research Institute’s subsidiaries.

13. On July 14, 1997, the Defendant informed the Defendant that there is a possibility of progressive collapse as water flows out of reservoir water. (2) On July 14, 1997, the Defendant filed an application for permission for dam renovation with a concrete medium-scale dam by expanding a floodgate on the part of the existing well-run dam. According to the plan for the restoration, ① the construction period is from September 1997 to July 198, ② the hydroelectric power generation, ③ the additional 10.5 x 7 cm of the existing dam, ③ the additional 10.5 cm of 10.5 x 3 x 7 cm of 11.3 x 5 cm of the existing dam and the additional 12 cm of 20.3 cm of the width of the dam. (4 cm of 20.5 cm of the existing dam) as 3 cm of 10.5 cm of the size of the dam.

14. According to the application for permission for self-building, the Yeongdeungpo-do planned flood discharge is 3,230cms (50 years frequency based on the Gyeonggi-do River Maintenance Master Plan) and in this case, the drainage level taking into account the maximum flood level EL 52.32m in the Seocheon Dam into account the maximum flood level EL 52.32m in the Seocheon Dam is above 53.56m in the case of a white-ri area, EL 51.43m in the bank located in the dam white-ri area.

2. The area of a white village with a height of 13 meters seems to be inevitable for flooding. Accordingly, pursuant to the provisions of Article 38 of the River Act and Article 28 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the installation plan of disaster prevention facilities and measures against flooding were formulated and notified to supplement the application for permission. Accordingly, the defendant submitted a plan to reduce the number of five floodgates that extend to the YY-gun on November 27, 1997. On December 15, 1997, the Ycheon-gun submitted a plan that does not cause any damage to the upper region of the dam. On November 27, 1997, the annual planned flood of the dam against the defendant on November 27, 1997, the annual planned flood of the dam was 3,580 cms (the number of years based on the Gyeonggi-do River Maintenance Master Plan for River Maintenance was inevitable on November 4, 1000) to increase the volume of flood damage in the area of the dam prior to 2500 m.500 m.

(4) On February 11, 1998, the defendant submitted an external service report to the Seocheon-gun on which there is no flood impact on the dam upstream area on November 27, 1997. On April 20, 1998, the defendant was required to submit an installation plan for disaster prevention facilities. (4) On April 20, 1998, he submitted an external service report to the Gyeonggi-do on the effect that there is no flood impact on the dam upstream area. (5) On May 13, 1998, on April 24, 1998, the effect of a planned flood flow decline on the Han River, the Han River, the Young River, the Young River, and the 2000 square meters of the total flood discharge, even if there is no dam, 3000 square meters of the total flood discharge, 97 x 150 cm of the dam construction as follows: (15 cm of 95 cm per x 195 cm of the dam construction:

(1) The length of a dam: 94.5m in the section of an existing female road, 74.5m in the section of an existing female road, 74.5m in the section of an existing female road and 5m in the other 111.5m.

② Under the former 10.5m ¡¿ 11.3m x 7 m x 10.5m x 14.5m x 5m x annual 5m on September 30, 1998, the Defendant obtained the authorization of the implementation plan under Article 30-2 of the River Act (Article 30 (6) of the current River Act) until September 25, 1998, as stipulated in the permission to rebuild a dam on September 13, 1998; the Defendant failed to implement the plan; and the deadline was not followed by the Defendant.

15. 까지 연장하면서 만약 위 기한내 실시계획인가를 신청하지 아니하면 하천법 제70조 에 의하여 하천점용허가를 실효처리할 예정임을 고지하였다. 피고는 1998. 10. 15. 연천군에게 하천점용허가 설치계획인가신청을 하였고, 1998. 10. 23. 연천군으로부터 댐의 담수 또는 방류로 인하여 상 · 하류지역에 피해가 발생하면 피허가자가 책임보상을 하겠다는 내용의 각서를 제출하는 등 5가지의 인가조건 하에 실시계획인가를 받은 후 , 위 각서를 제출하고, 연천댐 복구공사 착공계를 제출하였다 . ( 6 ) 피고가 위 착공계 제출 후 공사계획서상 1998. 12. 20. 부터 착공하여야 하는 가체절 ( 假締切 ) 보강공사를 지연하여 1998. 12. 28. 연천군으로부터 1999년도 우기시 수해의 위험을 감안 촉구지시하니 빠른 시일내에 가체절 보강공사를 착공하기 바라며 착공이 지연되는 경우에는 복구의사가 없는 것으로 간주하고 법적인 행정절차를 이행하겠다는 통보를 받았고, 복구공사에 앞서 1999. 1. 20. 부터 1999. 3. 20. 까지 사이에 연천댐 우안측 약 140m 부분에 관하여 양쪽에 가시설 ( 시트파일, sheet pile ) 을 박고 가운데 부분에 토사를 채운 후 콘크리트를 타설하는 방법으로 가물막이 공사 ( EL 48m ) 를 하였다. 위 가물막이 부분은 도로기능을 하면서 홍수기 저수위가 EL 48m를 넘는 경우 유수가 가물막이 부분을 넘쳐 흐르도록 설계 · 시공된 것인데, 이는 EL 48. 2m부터 EL55m까지의 우안 붕괴부 통수가능 단면적을 약 23 % 감소시켰고, 또 높이가 다른 좌안 사력댐 부분에 많은 영향을 주게 되어 사력댐 부분이 상대적으로 취약하게 만들었다 . ( 결과적으로 아래 사항 기재와 같이 연천댐 좌안측 사력댐 부분이 유실되었다 ) . ( 7 ) 한편, 연천군은 연천댐 복구공사 착공 후에도 1999. 4. 27. 및 같은 해 7. 9 .

To the defendant, the measures to prevent flooding in a white area and the matters to be examined at the time of design service for this purpose shall be presented.

Although the defendant urged that he be called, the defendant did not prepare measures for the prevention of flooding in the white field even before the beginning of July 1999.

(g) On July 31, 1999, the second collapse of the dam in 1999 (a) 00: 00 on July 31, 1999 among Gyeonggi-do, the centered on the waterside formed between 00 and 00 on August 24, 199 and 19: 00, the centered on the strongest of South and North Korea, and the impact of the stormest of 3,000 (the impact of the main stream of the dam in the Han River in the Han River, the upstream of Han River, and the maximum of 30,000 square meters from the Han River in the Han River, the average of 1,000 to 30,000 square meters from the Han River (the maximum of 30,000 square meters from the Han River in the Han River, the maximum of 30,000 square meters from the Han River in the 2,000,000 square meters from the Han River area).

8. 1. 05 : 05 : the maximum flood discharge at the time of the first collapse, which was less than 10,936 cms at the time of the first collapse, but the amount exceeded 7,172 cms which was the flood discharge at the same location as set forth in the 150-year river improvement plan of Gyeonggi-do on 1998. Unlike the rain in 1996, the rain in this case exceeded the river discharge at the same location as set forth in the 150-year river improvement plan for the Han River System. Unlike the rain in 1996, the rain in this case exceeded the rain in the river basin in the river basin in the river basin, the flood in the Han River water level observation station located at the Hancheon, which was located at the right point in the Hancheon river basin, was the maximum of 12,304 cms (the river level observation station in the Han River basin in 199.8. 199).

1. 06 :00 ) increased 769 cms more than 11,535 cms in 1996.

On August 1, 1999, when the maximum flood discharge due to the rain of this case was the 3,234 cm (on August 1, 1999:0 :05:00 on August 1, 199) and the water level of the dam was the highest on August 1, 199: 03: EL5.64 m., the water level was 3,05 m., and the water level was 3,05 m., and the water level of the dam was 3,05 m., the water level was 3,05 m., and the water level was 3,000 m., the water level was 10,000 m.,000 m., the water level was 3:00 m.,000 m.,000 m.,000 m.,000 m.,030 m.,010.

(C) On July 31, 1999: Around 50, the Dongcheon-si area began to be flooded, around 23:00, around 200, respectively. On July 23, 199: from around 30 to August 00: 1, 1999, a monthly stream began to run down in the part of the well-being of the Socheon Dam (48.20m of the annual dam water level), the flood alert was issued to 00,000 river basin, and around 45,000, around 02: 02: 02: 02: 50m of the annual dam, and 300m of the annual collapse and 40m of the dam at around 30,000,000: 20m of the annual collapse and 04m of the dam at around 06: 30,50m of the year (54m of the year; 40m of the year).

(3) According to the water level data of the Young-gu water level observation station (YL 56.947m) located at the upstream of about 9km from 00 m from 00 m., the water level was 286 m. on July 31, 199, and the water level was 286 m. on August 1, 199, and the first m. was 442 m. on August 12, 199, and the second m. was 00 m. on August 12, 1999.

(B) According to the water level observation station of the Han River located in Green River (YL 19.83m) 1.04 August 1, 1999 due to the influence of the destruction of the dam: around 00 12,85.1 cm, 05: 00, the maximum water level of 35.07m of the dam at around 12,00,000, and the 9,00000 annual water level of the dam at around 7,000,000, the 9,00000 annual water level of the dam at around 7,000,000: (a) the 4,0000 annual water level of the dam at around 8,00,000, the 9,0000 annual water level of the dam at around 7,000,000,0000,0000.

1. 02: The volume of outflow of a dam was 6,892.2 03: the maximum volume of outflow was 03:06: the maximum volume of outflow was 12,054. From 03:0 to 40:00,000, the volume of outflow was 03:00 to 40:00,000 if the dam was destroyed, the volume was 0:00 to 3:0,000,000 if the dam was destroyed, the maximum volume was 0:0 to 4:0,000,000,000: 0: 0: 3:0,000,000 if the dam was destroyed by 0 to 4:0,000,000,000,000: 3:3:0,000,0000,0000 water level was 0 to 4:0,000,000,000.

(D) Meanwhile, at the time of the instant friendship, the EL level was 56.51m, and the EL53.67m, which was lower than the level at the time of the instant Hocheon Dam, was 2.84m lower than the level at which the instant Hocheon Dam was not installed. In addition, it was found that the water preventor was 0.03 to 25m high from the date of the dam, due to the influence of incomplete opening of the file and the floodgate at the time of the dam.

H. (1) From July 1, 1998, the Defendant started commercial development using the annual dam again from July 1, 1998, which had not started to implement restoration work due to the primary collapse, the commercial development continued to exist while maintaining the water level up to 18 July 1, 1999, and the total flood depth of the annual dam was 79.1m (7 X 1m3m per 19.3m per 1999, 1999, and the employees of the relevant agency were 1m2:70m per annum (77m x 10m x 9m 9m m 99,000,000,0000 annually after 17:0,000 per annum from the date of the first collapse of the dam, and the employees of the relevant agency did not complete their opinions on the removal of the dam at the time of the first collapse of the dam at the time of 19:20m 2,000 per annum.

I. The plaintiffs' place of residence and details of damages (1) are residents of the "Yancheon-gun, Yancheon-gun, Yancheon-gun, Yancheon-gun, Yancheon-gun, Yancheon-gun, Yancheon-gun, Yancheon-gun, Yancheon-gun, Yancheon-gun, Yancheon-gun, Yancheon-gun, Yancheon-gun, Yancheon-gun, Yancheon-gun, Yancheon-gun, Yancheon-gun, Yancheon-gun, Yancheon-do,

(2) The Plaintiffs suffered from each property damage, such as the inundation and loss of household tools, buildings, business assets, etc. owned by the Plaintiffs due to the increase of water level due to the instant friendship that occurred from July 31, 1999.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence 1 through evidence 56, evidence 158 through evidence 95, evidence 150 through evidence 157, evidence 159, evidence 161, evidence 162, evidence 164 through evidence 204, evidence 257 through evidence 259, evidence 261, evidence 263 through 265, evidence 25-2, Eul evidence 3, evidence 4-2, evidence 15, 22, evidence 24, evidence 23 and 255, evidence 15, part of evidence 15 and 157, evidence 159, evidence 164 through 162, evidence 164 through evidence 204, evidence 167, evidence 164 through evidence 165, evidence 17, evidence 1 of the court of first instance, fact-finding of the whole Korea Water Resources Corporation, Korea Water Resources Corporation's oral proceedings against the Korea Meteorological Administration.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

At the time of July 31, 1999, the plaintiffs asserted that, as of July 31, 1999, the Socheon Dam collapses due to the defects in the installation and management of the defendant, the plaintiffs suffered property and mental damages as stated in the aggregate of the claims in the separate sheet sheet, and thus, they are obligated to compensate the plaintiffs for the above damages pursuant to Article 756 and 758 of the Civil Act.

B. The defect in the installation and management of a dam and the defect in the installation and preservation of a structure under Article 758 of the Civil Act (1) refer to a state in which a structure fails to meet the normal safety requirements according to its purpose. In determining whether such safety requirements are met, it shall be based on whether the installer and custodian of the structure has fulfilled the duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the danger of the structure (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da27022 delivered on October 10, 1997, etc.).

(2) Since a river is an object of natural phenomenon of water flow, it is extremely difficult to predict the scale, scope, and timing of the river flow, or the occurrence and operation of a flood, etc., which is the source of the river flow. Since it is impossible to grasp the flood action, etc., it cannot be based on the past flood experience. The safety of river appurtenances, such as a dam, is ordinarily equipped with the installation and management of a river, including artificial facilities such as a dam, etc. under all natural conditions, such as topography and geological features, where the river is located, which ordinarily predicts the flood (a planned flood of a scale of flood), so that it can safely lower the flood (a planned flood of a scale of flood), so it is safe structure so that the disaster caused by such flood does not come to residents in the bank.

In addition, although a river has a risk of causing a disaster due to natural causes, such as its original flood, but the management of a river requires enormous investment, so it cannot be completely maintained at the same time and the maintenance of a river requires a long period of time. Therefore, the improvement of the safety of a river and the existence of a defect in the management of a river are bound to be determined in accordance with the order of priority after the commencement of the management.

Therefore, whether there is a defect in the management of a river shall be determined from an objective standpoint in light of the general level of river management and social norms as seen above, by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the scale of flood damage in the past, frequency of occurrence, cause of occurrence, the nature of damage, the rainfall status, topography and other natural conditions of the river basin, the state of land utilization and other social conditions, the existence of urgency requiring repair or reconstruction, and the degree thereof, etc.

(3) In particular, in designing and constructing a small-scale power-driven dam, such as the Hancheon Dam, which is installed at the middle of the river whose width is narrow and rapid, the width of which is relatively narrow, and which prevents the flow of flowing water, it is important to have the flow of water different. In other words, if the flow of water is different, it is necessary to take protective measures to ensure that the dam does not lose or collapse, while storing the rainfall that is concentrated by making it possible to safely lower the flow of water so that the dam can not flow out or collapse.

(3) The Defendant, as a result of the 190-year construction of the dam at the time of the 198-year construction and the 19-year construction of the dam at the time of the 1,000-year construction and the 1,000-year construction of the dam at the time of the 1,000-year construction and the 1,000-year construction of the dam at the time of the 1,000-year construction and the 2,000-year construction of the dam at the time of the 1,000-year construction and the 1,000-year construction of the 1,000-year construction and the 1,000-year construction of the dam at the time of the 1,000-year construction and the 2,000-year construction of the dam at the time of the 1,000-year construction and the 3,000-year construction of the dam.

18: The facts that the river collapse had not been interrupted until 00: (2) because there was a tendency of continuous flood control in the Gyeonggi-do area since 1996, it was not possible for the plaintiffs to take measures to remove water from the dam at the time of flood again (or the residents to have no damage due to temporary suspension of power generation in the area because of the low volume of annual power generation of the dam) by means of lowering water level to prevent any damage caused by the dam from flowing water; (3) The Defendant was not obliged to take measures to remove water from the dam at least 9:00 hours on the ground that the total flood level of the dam collapse was 7:00,000,000,000, and the Defendant was not obliged to take measures to remove water from the dam at least 9:00,000,000,000,0000,000 more than six (1:6:0,0000,000,000).

(d) The reasonable causal relationship (1) is that the area of a white-purpose dam above the upper 2000 dam was established at the time of new construction of the annual river, as well as at the time of the first collapse of the dam in 196, taking into account bottled phenomena due to the change of the river width, drainage level due to the maximum flood level at the annual dam, and the elevation of the 0000 dam, and there was no actual measure. However, the Defendant prepared several statements that the water level would have been compensated for the damages to the 0000 dam at the time of the construction of the 20000 dam at the time of the installation of the 30000 dam. The Defendant did not have a maximum of 900,0000 annual water level since the installation of the 30000 dam at the time of the construction of the 20000 dam at the time of the 20000 dam at the time of the installation of the 300000 dam at the time of the installation of the 90000002 dam.

(2) The area below the Hancheon Dam located at the downstream of the Han River, Han River, Hancheon-do, Hancheon-do, located below the 13km from the Hancheon Dam, where the Han River was at the lower stream than the 13km from the Hancheon Dam. However, due to the collapse of the Hancheon Dam, approximately 6,14 cms came to the lower stream at the same time through the cross-section, and due to the collapse of the Hancheon Dam, the flow flow at the Han River, the maximum of 2,847 cms, water level of 0.87 ms in the Han River, and water level of 0.87 ms in the Han River due to the collapse of the Hancheon Dam-do Dam, the defendant also appeared to have discussed on the compensation for damages by considering the impact on the lower stream area within 15 km from the dam after the second collapse of the Hancheon Dam. Even in the appraisal report of this case, there was a reasonable causal relation between the river and the river level of 15 m.

E. Defendant’s assertion and judgment (1) Defendant’s assertion

(4) The defendant opened a flood control area of 1 to 21: The river collapse area of 20000 per annum, which was destroyed by the collapse of the dam at the time of the flood of 2000,000: 30 reed on August 2, 199, where the influence of the dam was lost. Since the river collapse area of 2000,000, it cannot be viewed that there was a flood of 1000,000,000,0000,0000,0000,00000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00,00,00.

(2) Determination:

① Review of the allegations in this case, Gap 49-1 and 2, and review of the statements in this case.

28. On the same day on the water level observation data of the Young River: 06: 00 : 292 cm at around 00 : 00 : 401 cm at around 07 00 : 08 : 05 cm at the additional water level. However, with regard to the fact that the plaintiffs 1 through 21 dwelling areas suffered flood damage due to flooding at the time, it is not sufficient to recognize it by only one statement of Eul evidence 4, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Further, according to each statement of evidence No. 57 1, 2, and 158 - 1 through 3, according to the records of Gap's evidence No. 57 - it was operated at the time of August 28, 200, it can not be seen that there was a completely denied causal link between the above management area and the above management area.

It is true that the flood area in Han River amusement park has the characteristics of locking water as it is by the water level formed in the river as a river basin, and that even before the second collapse accident, the water level of 33.18 meters has already occurred. However, as seen earlier, there is no main flood before the second collapse accident in the Han River amusement park area, and thereafter, the water level of 12,054.8 cm, which is near 2 times as before the dam was destroyed due to the occurrence of the second collapse and the large volume of flood discharge of 0.14 to 65 meters in a short period, and as long as the water level of 12,054.8 cm, the water level of the Han River amusement park area began to suffer from flood damages within 0.14 to 0.65 meters, at least as a result, it is obvious that Plaintiff 21 through 36 had a significant increase in damages due to the occurrence of the second collapse, as otherwise alleged by the plaintiffs, it is still impossible to deny the causation between the above area and the flood.

③ The Defendant’s assertion that the highest flood level occurred around 06:0 on August 1, 1999 at a 04:0 EL34.87m, 05: 00 EL34.70m, 06: 00 EL34.70m, and 06: 00 EL34.98m, as seen earlier, are based on the results of the observation by the electric valley water level observation station, which shows a maximum flood level of 06:0 on a one-time basis. However, the above observation results cannot be readily concluded that the highest flood level occurred at around 06:0,000. According to the appraisal of this case (118m: 06ms, which occurred at a dam, the maximum flood level of 0:00 mal. 12,054ms at a 04:00 to 3500 m. m., the highest flood level of 2500 m.

However, as shown in this part of the Defendant’s assertion, Eul evidence Nos. 3 (Preparation of the Korean Thys Association for Incorporated Association, “the cause of and impact on the flood damage caused by the dam at the Hancheon Power Station.” The above report concluded that the first flood level occurred due to the second collapse accident of the Hancheon Dam at 04:0, and that the effect of the second flood level was offset by the amount of natural oil inflow or the storage effect of the Han River due to the Han River, the Han River, and the Han River basin, etc., which continued to exist thereafter, and 06: 00, the second collapse was caused by the second highest flood level due to the above continuous rain, etc., which led only to the increase of the level of 2 to 4§¯, but it is difficult to believe that this part of the evidence No. 3, in light of the following circumstances, is difficult.

In other words, the water level observation station of the above 0.5 square meters at the downstream of Han River and the new 0.5 square meters, and the volume of the river flow at the Han River basin was higher than 1996 due to the characteristics of the above 4.5 square meters. However, it is reasonable to view that the river flow at the 0.5 square meters from the new 0.5 square meters to the 1.4 square meters from the new 1.5 square meters, and that there was a rapid decline in the influence of the flood wave in the Han River basin near the Han River water level observation station, and that there was a decrease in the 1.3 square meters from the new 1:00 to 05 square meters, and that there was a decrease in the 1.3 square meters from the new 1:00 to 00, 2000 square meters from the previous 3.4 square meters, and that there was a decrease in the 1.4 square meters from the previous 1.3 square meters from the river level observation station.

④ As to the assertion, it is true that the annual dam has to open several doors to release water at flood due to the lack of capacity to control flood, as alleged by the Defendant, on the grounds that the water level level of the upstream and downstream of the dam at flood is nearly equal to that of the river at flood. However, compared to the case where the annual dam at issue was not installed as seen earlier, if the dam was not destroyed, only the rise of water level between 01 and 02 meters from the instant dam at issue was anticipated, but as long as it can be recognized that there was a rise in additional water level of 0.14 to 65 meters due to the destruction of the dam, there is causation between the second collapse accident and the damages suffered by the said plaintiffs.

Ultimately, it is true that some natural forces conflict in the occurrence of damages suffered by the plaintiffs.

Even if it is difficult to see that the damage was caused by force majeure, the defendant cannot be exempted from the liability for damages of this case against the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the defendant's assertion against the plaintiffs is without merit (Provided, That with respect to the part that contributed to natural power, this shall be considered in determining the scope of damages in the following 3.).

F. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for damages caused by the defects in the construction and management of the Socheon Dam.

3. Extent of damages (Limitation on Liability)

A. According to the facts of the recognition of the property damage (1) above, it is reasonable to limit the defendant's liability to the extent of damages suffered by the defendant in addition to the defects in the construction and management of the Socheon Dam, such as the error of calculating the planned flood and water circulation capacity of the Socheon Dam, and the failure to prepare special measures despite the anticipated flood in the lecheon Dam due to the construction of the Socheon Dam, etc., in addition to the defects in the construction and management of the Socheon Dam, the river amounting to about 2/3 of the annual average of the Republic of Korea exceeded 1,00 years, the daily maximum river amount was located in the 1,000 times, the white village area was located in the leap of the mountain, and the lecheon area was located in the lecheon river, and there were natural factors or natural capabilities that have contributed to the extension of the lecheon river between the lecheon river station and the Socheon Dam. In full view of all the circumstances indicated in the records of this case, it should be considered in the principle of fairness.

Therefore, when calculating the amount of property damage against the above plaintiffs, each amount stated in the separate sheet for the amount of property damage shall be the amount.

(2) According to the facts of recognition as above, in addition to the defects in the construction and management of the annual dam, the annual average of 2/3 of the river in Korea was set off within 3 days in addition to the defects in the construction and management of the dam, such as the error in calculating the planned flood and water capacity of the dam in the amount of damage to the property of the plaintiff 22 through 36 in the Hancheon River, the amount of damage caused by the plaintiff 22 to the plaintiff 36 in the annual river, and the amount of the rainfall in the annual average of 2/3 in addition to the defects in the construction and management of the dam in which the Hocheon Dam was issued, it was located at the downstream of about 13 km from the Hancheon Dam in the daily maximum of 1,00, the amount of the river in the Hancheon River was located at the downstream river, and the amount of damage suffered by the plaintiff 25 % in the course between the Han River and the Hancheon Dam. In full view of the records in this case, it should be considered in accordance with the principle of fairness.

Therefore, when calculating the amount of property damage against the above plaintiffs, each amount stated in the separate sheet for the amount of property damage shall be the amount.

(b) consolation money;

The plaintiffs 1 through 8, 10 through 36 are sufficiently admitted in light of the empirical rule that due to the defects in the construction and management of the Socheon Dam, they suffered from the second collapse accident in 196 following the first collapse accident in 1999, and caused considerable mental suffering, such as inundation, loss of property, business assets, etc., and loss of living base. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the above damages suffered by the above plaintiffs, and the amount of consolation money shall be determined with the amount of money recorded in the column of the amount of consolation money, in full view of all the circumstances shown in the records of this case, such as whether the above plaintiffs are farmers, business income, and whether they are themselves.

However, it is determined that the transportation of the plaintiff 10. The plaintiff 10. The plaintiff 10. The plaintiff 10. The plaintiff 10. The plaintiff 10. The plaintiff 10. The plaintiff 10. claim consolation money for mental suffering to the purport that the employees of the plaintiff company such as the representative member, etc. were suffering from severe mental suffering. Thus, the plaintiff 10. The plaintiff 10. The plaintiff 10.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's claim 2 to 3.0% of the total amount of 9.0% or 2.0% of the total amount of 3.0% or 9% of the above 9.0% of the total amount of 9.0% or 2.0% of the above 9.0% of the total amount of 3.0% of the above 9.0% of the total amount of 9.0% of the above 9.0% of the total amount of 9.0% of the above 9.0% of the total amount of 9% of the above 9.0% of the total amount of 3.0% of the above 9.0% of the total amount of 9% of the above 9.0% of the above 9.0% of the total amount of 9% of the plaintiffs' 2.0% of the above 9.0% of the total amount of 9% of the above 19.0% of the above 9% of the total amount of 19.0% of the above judgment of the above 20.0% of the above damages of this case.