2015Da20958 Compensation (as referred to in this paragraph)

A person shall be appointed.

2

3

4

5

6

1. Gyeonggi-do;

2. Substitute Construction Company;

Seoul High Court Decision 2014Na2006693 Decided February 9, 2015

April 12, 2016

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant Gyeonggi-do, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning after comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, and the accident in this case is deemed that the defect in the installation and management of the instant embankment in Defendant Gyeonggi-do or the negligence in the installation and management of the instant embankment by the Defendants had occurred concurrently. Therefore, Defendant Gyeonggi-do is liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to the accident in this case pursuant to

was made.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the relevant legal principles and records, we affirm the fact-finding and judgment of the court below as just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to defects or negligence in the construction and management of public structures, as otherwise alleged in the

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant Daedae Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”).

A. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning by comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, and determined that the instant accident occurred due to the negligence in installing and managing the instant embankment by the Defendant Company. Therefore, the Defendant Company was liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for the damages incurred by the instant accident under Article 750 of the Civil Act

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the relevant legal principles and records, we affirm the fact-finding and judgment of the court below as just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to causation between harmful act and damage, incomplete hearing, and violation of the rules of evidence

B. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 3 and 4, the scope of damages should be limited to the remainder after deducting the part which is deemed to have contributed to the natural ability as to the occurrence of damages from the perspective of fair burden of damages. The determination of the contribution to the natural force and the fact-finding or ratio thereof is within the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court unless it is deemed clearly unreasonable in light of the principle of equity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da66476, Apr. 29, 2005). In addition, the fact-finding or determination of the limitation of liability to ensure comparative negligence or the equitable burden of damages is within the exclusive authority of deliberation, unless it is deemed remarkably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da31751, Nov. 27, 2008).

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s fact-finding or its determination on the grounds for limitation of liability such as apportionment of natural power or comparative negligence cannot be deemed significantly unreasonable in light of the principle of equity. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles as

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jo Hee-de

Justices Lee Sang-hoon

Justices Kim Jae-tae

Justices Park Sang-ok