1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. 기초사실 갑 제1호증, 갑 제2호증의 1 내지 3의 각 기재, 갑 제6호증의 1 내지 5의 각 영상, 제1심법원의 순천향대학교 서울병원장에 대한 신체감정촉탁 결과에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 원고는 2015. 1. 9. 16:17경 안산시 단원구 B 하나은행 C지점 앞 인도(이하 ‘이 사건 인도’라 한다)의 보도블록 일부가 훼손되어 땅이 움푹 파인 사실을 모르고 걷던 중, 위 훼손된 부분에 발이 걸려 그대로 앞으로 넘어지면서 얼굴이 인도바닥에 부딪히는 사고(이하 ‘이 사건 사고’라 한다)로 안면비골골절, 우측 상악중절치 제2급 치관파절을 동반한 치아 아탈구, 안면부열상 등의 상해를 입은 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the accident of this case occurred as a manager of the India of this case, even though the defendant, as a manager of the India of this case, has a duty to repair the road blocks within his jurisdiction and prevent accidents that could occur to pedestrians, but neglected the damaged news report block on the India of this case as it is.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 15,139,830 (=5,830 + KRW 120,577,00 for dental surgery + KRW 4,457,00 for a dental surgery + KRW 10,139,830 for a sum of KRW 15,139,830 for a solatium (= KRW 562,830 + KRW 4,57,000 + KRW 10,000) and damages for delay.

B. (i) Defect in the construction and management of public structures as provided by Article 5(1) of the State Compensation Act refers to the state in which the public structures offered for public purposes have not been able to have ordinary safety in accordance with their intended use.

Whether such safety has been established is based on whether the installer or manager of a public structure has fulfilled his/her duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the danger of the public structure.