2013Da16657 Compensation (as stated)

1. A;

2. B

3. C

1. Busan Metropolitan City;

2. Busan exists-gu Busan Metropolitan City.

Busan High Court Decision 2012Na8777 Decided January 16, 2013

January 29, 2015

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the accident site of this case in the judgment of the court below is where traffic volume is high, that the height of the road shoulder and the surface of this case in the judgment of the court below was originally the same, but it was about 6§¯ in the present time, and that the height of the road at the point where the accident occurred, among the road shoulder of this case, there is about 5cm in the water surface of this case, and that the width of the part where the road is not packed among the road shoulder of this case, and about 85cm in the width of the part where the road is not packed is about 85cm in the road, after taking into account these facts, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff Gap gets a motorcycle and passed through the road shoulder of this case is out of the ordinary and orderly use of the road. The road shoulder of this case is used for that purpose

The judgment below determined that there was a defect that does not have ordinary safety, and that such a defect was a cause for the occurrence of the instant accident.

2. (a) Article 2. 29 of the Rules on Standards for Structure and Facilities of the Road (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules of this case") provides that "The driver of a vehicle and a driver of a vehicle shall pass along the roadway separately from the sidewalk and the roadway," and Article 2. 21 of the Road Traffic Act provides that "The driver of a vehicle and a driver of a vehicle shall pass along the roadway, except in special cases where a driver of a vehicle and a driver of a vehicle are installed on the roadway," and Article 13. 19 of the Road Traffic Act provides that "the part of a roadway divided by the lane so that a vehicle can pass along the lane at a reduced portion of the road". Article 13. 2 of the Road Traffic Act provides that "The driver of a vehicle and a driver of a vehicle shall pass along the roadway except in cases where the driver of a vehicle and a driver of a vehicle are installed in an emergency." Article 14. 2 of the Road Traffic Act provides that "The driver of a vehicle and a driver of a vehicle shall not pass through the roadway."

B. Meanwhile, as seen above, Article 28 (3) of the Rules of this case provides that "the difference between the cross slope of the shoulder and the cross slope of the roadway shall not exceed 8% in consideration of the construction nature, economic feasibility, and traffic safety" (2) Article 2 subparagraph 26 of the Rules of this case provides that the side gate shall be installed within the thickness of the roadway, and it refers to the part installed by linking the cross slope and the roadway with the same structure as the central separation zone or the roadside in order to induce the driver of the traffic on the side and to secure the time side of the roadway." Article 29 (2) of the Rules of this case provides that "the cross slope of the roadway and the cross slope of the roadway shall be installed in the same way as the road in order to protect the road and to ensure the safe passage of the roadway." Article 30 of the Rules of this case provides that the passage of the roadway of this case shall be installed in a safe and smooth way to ensure the safe passage of the road in consideration of the traffic volume, condition on the road, economic condition, and maintenance of the road."

C. Therefore, among the reasoning of the judgment below, Article 14 (2) of the Road Traffic Act only provides for the method of driving along the road along which lanes are installed, and cannot be viewed as a provision prohibiting the passage of the road, or it is not appropriate to deem the passage of the road on the shoulder of the road in this case without an urgent circumstance by the plaintiff A to be out of the ordinary and orderly method of using the road. However, the judgment of the court below that the defect of the shoulder of this case caused an accident of this case is just and acceptable, and there is no error by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the defect in the construction and management of the road which is a public structure, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Shin-chul

Justices Min Il-young

Justices Park Young-young

Justices Kim Jong-il