A. In a case where the City Mayor becomes a management agency of national highways under Article 22(2) of the Road Act, whether the State is exempted from liability for damages due to defects in the management of roads (negative)

(b) Whether a joint tortfeasor, who is the right of indemnity, may oppose the provisions of Article 6(2) of the State Compensation Act in a case where he is liable as a person bearing expenses for the management of national highways (negative)

A. Even if the head of a local government, as the head of a national road management agency under Article 22(2) of the Road Act, is the head of a local government, it is not exempt the State from liability for damages caused by defects in the management of a road, since the Mayor is delegated the management duties by

B. Since it is a person who bears the responsibility for the management of national highways is a unique liability under the State Compensation Act, the Si bears the responsibility for damages caused by road defects in the internal relationship with the joint tortfeasor, who is a joint and several liability. Article 6(2) of the State Compensation Act applies only to determining the scope of internal indemnity between the parties when the State, which is a managing body of the road, and the economic body, bears the expenses, and thus cannot set up against the joint tortfeasor, who is the right of indemnity

(a) Article 5 of the State Compensation Act, Article 22(2) of the Road Act, Article 6(1) of the State Compensation Act, Article 56 of the Road Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 91Da34097 delivered on December 24, 1991 (Gong1992,681) 92Da38041 delivered on November 10, 1992 (Gong1993,94)

Korea Electric Power Corporation Law Firm, Pacific Law Office, Attorneys Kim In-som et al.

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other than the Republic of Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na48470 delivered on December 18, 1991

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

1. We examine the grounds of appeal by Defendant Republic of Korea (the grounds of appeal by supplement to the extent of supplement).

On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below judged that it is reasonable to regard the share of liability between the plaintiff and the defendant as the proportion of the judgment based on the circumstance of the accident in this case recognized by the evidence. In light of the records, the court below's findings of fact and the judgment are just and there

The argument is without merit.

On the second ground for appeal

Even if the road of this case was a national highway and became the management agency of Seogpo City since the time when the decision was made in accordance with Article 22 (2) of the Road Act, it shall be deemed that the Seopo City, the head of the local government, delegated its management duties from the defendant Republic of Korea to the head of the national administrative agency. Therefore, the defendant Republic of Korea shall not be exempted from liability for damages due to defects in the management of the road of this case. Therefore, the judgment below is just and there is no error

2. We examine the grounds of appeal in the case of Defendant Seogpo-si.

Based on its reasoning, the judgment of the court below is justified in the judgment below to the effect that the liability of the person bearing the expenses for the management of the road in this case as the person liable for the damages caused by the defect of the road in this case is an internal relationship with the plaintiff jointly and severally liable, and the provision of Article 6 (2) of the State Compensation Act applies only to determining the scope of the internal indemnity between the defendant, who is the managing body of the road in this case, and the defendant Seopo-si, who is the economic body of the defendant Seopo-si, who is the managing body of the road in this case, to the extent that the scope of the right of indemnity cannot be asserted against the plaintiff, who is the right of indemnity.

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.