209 Ghana 31969 Claims

Marine Insurance Corporation,

A whose representative director is changed A

Law Firm Cheonghae, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Sung-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Busan Metropolitan City Northern-gu

Representative B of the Gu

Law Firm International Law Firm

[Defendant-Appellant]

October 23, 2009

November 27, 2009

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 113,505,890 won with 5% interest per annum from March 14, 2008 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. At around 13:00 on April 13, 2005, Nonparty 1 driven a vehicle from Busan 80 Ramba (hereinafter “the instant vehicle”) and driven a two-lane road in front of the Mambae Center located in Seocheon-dong, Busan (hereinafter “C1”) with a two-lane of 2-lane of emulciating oil reservoir from the emulciation of emuliation in the emuliation of emuliation of emuliation.g., Nonparty 1 caused the accident that Nonparty C2’s emuliation of emuliation of emuli in the middle part of the instant vehicle, which proceeded with the central line from the emuliation of emuliation of emuliation of emuliation of emuliation of emuliation of emuliation of emuliation of emuliation of emuli.g. (hereinafter “the accident”).

B. The road in which the accident in this case occurred (hereinafter referred to as the "road in this case") is one-way and two-lanes of the way occupied and managed by the defendant, and four-lanes of the road in each direction of about 45 degrees at the point of accident. The road in this case was installed continuously at night display lights (roadmarks) in the form of protruding to yellow solid lines at about 1-2 meters at the center of two yellow solid lines. However, the center line of the point in which the accident occurred is protruding to a Mabro, so it was difficult to find it easily into the land. On the other hand, in the road in this case, the two-lanes of the road in this case were separated from one-lane and two-lanes of the two-lanes of the road in each direction of about 45 degrees at the point of accident, and the defendant was installed at the point of accident in this case with the two 7-lanes of the road in this case, and the two 7-lanes of the road in this case and the two-lanes of the driver in each of the road in this case.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1 through 5 (including each number), Eul 1-1-8, Eul 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on this safety defense

According to Article 147 of the Road Traffic Act, the defendant asserts that the head of a local government who is obliged to install and manage signal apparatus and safety signs for the prevention of danger on the road may delegate part of his authority or affairs to the commissioner of a local police agency, etc. According to Article 86 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Traffic Act, the right to install and manage traffic safety facilities is delegated to the commissioner of a local police agency by the Special Metropolitan City Mayor/Metropolitan City Mayor, and the defendant is not a party obligated to install traffic safety facilities

As seen earlier, the road of this case is the Gu road that the defendant occupies and manages. Even if the authority to install traffic safety facilities of this case was entrusted to the Commissioner General of the National Police Agency, etc. under the above Acts and subordinate statutes, the entrustment of such authority is to carry out the affairs in the position of the local government entrusted with the authority as the delegation of authority. Thus, the affairs such as the installation of traffic safety facilities under the Road Traffic Act are still attributed to the local government and the obligation to compensate for the defects in the construction of traffic safety facilities is also borne (According to each of the statements in the evidence No. 3-1 through No. 3, after the accident of this case, the defendant, in fact after the accident of this case, installed the central leading, reflective, etc. at the location of the accident of this case), under the premise that the defendant did not have the duty to install the traffic safety facilities of

3. Determination on the merits

The plaintiff was difficult to distinguish the central line of the road of this case from the point of accident, and the point of accident is a dangerous structure where the accident occurred rapidly. The defendant who manages the road of this case has a duty to install the facilities for the prevention of accident, such as leading salary at the center of the road, or installing reflectors that can see opposite vehicles, etc., so that the vehicle operating the road of this case does not infringe the central line, but has contributed to the construction and management of the road of this case and the occurrence or expansion of the accident of this case. Thus, the defendant's liability ratio of the defendant (=27,01,780 won x 50% x 50%) out of the insurance money paid by the plaintiff as damages.

The term "defect in the construction or management of a public structure" means that the public structure has no safety ordinarily required for its use. Thus, it cannot be deemed that there is a defect in the construction or management of the public structure merely because the public structure has no complete condition and has any defect in its function. Whether the safety has been equipped with the above standards shall be determined based on whether the installer or manager has fulfilled the duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required under social norms in proportion to the danger of the public structure, comprehensively taking into account the use of the public structure in question, the purpose of the public structure in question, the situation of the installation and use, etc., and the relationship with the other essential facilities in daily life or the financial, human and physical restrictions of the person who installs and manages it, it is sufficient to say that the public structure in question has a relative safety, i.e., the possibility of damages caused by the public structure in terms of its function and the possibility of avoiding it, i.e., the Central 14th degree or 4th degree of defects in the construction or management of the public structure in question.

Although it is possible to turn to the left without exceeding a religion line, it is deemed that the driver of the instant vehicle who selected a route beyond the median line and left to the left was caused by the former negligence of the driver of the instant vehicle who left the left. Unless there is any evidence to prove otherwise that there was a defect in the construction and management of the instant road, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit without need to further examine.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Nationwide