1. As to the Plaintiff A’s KRW 160,295,380, and KRW 3,000,000 to Plaintiff B, and each of the said money, the Defendant from January 17, 2017 to January 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiff B is the wife of Plaintiff A, and the Defendant is a local government that manages the Dridge located in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “D bridge”).

B. On January 10, 2017, at around 18:40, Plaintiff A: (a) felled into the river bending down of a bridge and sustained injuries, such as the slope of a drilling, the closure of a sloping frame, and the dives of a diversary dives, etc.; (b) suffered injuries.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

D Bridges are divided into about 1/3 to 2 bridges in the direction of the pelvis in the Tae-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong. The width of the bridge in which the instant accident occurred is about 3.59 meters.

The height of the D Bridge is about 3 meters, there is no rail installed with a wire rope at a height of about 50 cm and about 1m, and there is no fall sign at the time of the on-site inspection by this court.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 2, the images and entries, the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The "defect in the construction or management of a public structure" in Article 5 (1) of the State Compensation Act means that the public structure has failed to have safety ordinarily required for its use. However, the construction or management of a public structure cannot be deemed defective merely because the public structure does not have a complete condition and has some defects in its function. In determining whether the public structure has safety above, it shall be based on whether the installer or manager has fulfilled the duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required in light of social norms in proportion to the danger of the public structure, by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as the purpose of the public structure in question, the present state of the installation and the situation of its use.

Supreme Court Decision 201.7.27.