The judgment below

Among the parts against the defendant, this part of the case shall be reversed, and it shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal on Defendant Korea Water Resources Corporation

A. Article 758(1) of the Civil Act provides, “If any damage is inflicted on another person due to a defect in the construction or preservation of a structure, the possessor of the structure shall be liable for the damage. However, if the possessor does not neglect due care necessary for the prevention of damage, the owner shall be liable for the damage.”

The legislative intent of the above provision is that a person who manages and owns a structure must pay attention necessary for the prevention of danger, and it is fair to impose liability on him/her in cases where damage occurs due to the realization of risk.

Therefore, “defect in the installation and preservation of a structure” refers to a state in which a structure does not have safety ordinarily according to its intended purpose. In determining whether such safety is satisfied, the determination should be based on whether a person who installs and preserves the 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 structure.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles and legislative purport, and the standards for determining the defect in the installation and preservation of a structure, etc., even if a certain damage was incurred due to a defect in a structure, if the damage did not occur due to a realization of the risks associated with the defect in the structure, it cannot be deemed as “damage caused by a defect in the installation or preservation of a structure.”

B. According to the records, the Plaintiffs were unable to properly install and manage the instant temporary site as the owner and possessor of the instant temporary site by the Korea Water Resources Corporation. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs were unable to be supplied with tap water.