beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. At around 11:20 on February 8, 2013, the network D (hereinafter “the network”). (Around February 8, 2013, the deceased deemed that he fells into the waterway of this case under the new wall around February 8, 2013, but it is impossible to know the exact date and time of death, and the said time and time discovered as the first time and time of death are specified as the time of death) 0.152% of the blood alcohol concentration in the city of Kimcheon-si (hereinafter “the instant waterway”) was under the influence of alcohol, and died due to damage, etc. by falling into the waterway and falling into the waterway, and then damaging the waterway.
(hereinafter “instant accident”). B.
The instant waterway is approximately 3 to 4 meters in width, and approximately 1 to 2 meters in depth, and the same width of the road located adjacent to the waterway (the Gincheon-si F. F. F. F., hereinafter “instant road”) is not divided into India and roadways.
Meanwhile, the instant waterway and the instant road are divided into approximately 10-20cm height, and safety facilities such as covers or safety nets are not installed on the instant waterway, and water was iced up up to half of the waterway at the time of the instant accident.
C. The managing body of the instant waterway is the Defendant.
Plaintiff
A is the wife of the deceased, and the children of the deceased B and C are children of the deceased.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, and 7 (including branch numbers in case of additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap evidence Nos. 5-1 through 8, and fact-finding with respect to the Kimcheon Police Station of the court of first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. According to the facts of recognition of the defendant's liability for damages, the road of this case is narrow and there is no distinction between India and the roadway. Since pedestrians using the road of this case, etc. have a risk of falling down under the road of this case and falling down on the waterway of this case, and thus, the defendant who installs and manages the road of this case has the right to prevent falling down and protective fences, etc. on the road of this case.