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 determined that Defendant Gyeonggi-do is liable to compensate the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to the instant accident pursuant to Article 2 or 5 of the State Compensation Act, on the ground that the instant accident was caused by the defect in the installation and management of the instant embankment in Defendant Gyeonggi-do or the Defendants’

The judgment below

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified 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 alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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

A. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning after comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, and determined that the instant accident occurred due to 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 caused by the instant accident under Article 750

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. The scope of compensation for damages should be limited to the remaining part which deducts the part deemed to have contributed to the natural ability in relation to the occurrence of damages from the perspective of fair burden of damages where the damage suffered by the injured party in the grounds of appeal Nos. 3 and 4 competes with the defects in the installation and preservation of structures.