1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiff A’s wife, Plaintiff B and C’s children, Plaintiff D’s wife, Plaintiff C’s wife (Plaintiff C’s wife), Plaintiff E and F are the grandchildren of the net G (Plaintiff C’s children).

B. The Busan Metropolitan City Mayor, who is the Mayor/Do governor within his jurisdiction pursuant to Article 8(2) of the River Act, is a local river and is in charge of the management work as the river management agency in accordance with Article 8(2) of the River Act.

(However, the maintenance and repair of local rivers and the inspection of the status of river management are delegated to the head of Busan Metropolitan City Shipping Authority under the Busan Metropolitan City Ordinance on Delegation of Administrative Affairs.

On June 3, 2013, the deceased on December 25, 2013, when he/she felled under the bank below 4.6 meters, and was hospitalized in the hospital, he/she died on December 25, 2013, when he/she felled under the bank below 4.6 meters and was hospitalized in the hospital.

(hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 9 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above facts, the Mayor of Busan Metropolitan City is liable for damages pursuant to Article 5(1) of the State Compensation Act where the causal relationship between the defects in the installation and management of the river of this case and the accident of this case is acknowledged as a person in charge of the maintenance and management of the river of this case.

B. The defect in the construction and management of a public structure under Article 5 of the State Compensation Act refers to the defect in the construction and management of a public structure that is incomplete, and thus, the public structure itself does not have safety requirements (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da32924, Nov. 22, 1994). Whether such safety requirements are met is the danger of the public structure.