1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. The reasoning for this part of the reasoning is that the court’s reasoning is identical to that of “1. Basic Facts” under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance No. 2, No. 3 through No. 4, and No. 8.

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The reasoning for this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: (a) the reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the corresponding part of Chapters 4, 10, and 4, and 20, respectively; and (b) thus, this part is cited in accordance with

B. 1) Determination of the relevant legal doctrine refers to a state in which a public structure, which was offered for public purposes, fails to have safety ordinarily required depending on its use. Whether the construction or manager of the public structure has fulfilled his/her duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the risk of the public structure. Moreover, the determination of whether the construction or manager of the public structure has satisfied the above safety must take into account the financial and physical restrictions, etc. of the installer or manager of the public structure. Therefore, in the case of a road which is a public structure, it cannot be readily concluded that the construction or management of the public structure does not have high level of safety to the extent that it maintains the perfect state, and it is sufficient to say that the construction or management of the public structure does not have high level of safety to the extent that it would ensure the common and orderly use of the public structure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da208074, Oct. 24, 2013).