logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2015.07.16 2014나10755
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid additionally shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is as stated in the part of “recognition of Facts” under Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the part of “Recognition Facts” under Article 1

2. Occurrence of and limitation on liability for damages;

A. The "defect in the construction or management of a public structure" under Article 5 (1) of the State Compensation Act refers to the state where the public structure is not equipped with safety ordinarily required according to its use. Thus, the construction or management of the public structure cannot be deemed to be defective merely because the public structure is not completely in its function and has any defect in its function. The above safety shall be determined on the basis of whether the construction manager has fulfilled the duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the danger of the public structure in light of the purpose of the public structure in question, the present state of the installation and the situation of its use. In case where there is no possibility and possibility of a loss occurrence due to the defect in the function of the public structure in time and place, in other words, the defect in the construction or management of the public structure can not be acknowledged in a case where the construction manager's management of the public structure is under circumstances where the defect in the public structure cannot affect the management of the public structure.

(2) In light of the following purport: (a) the Defendant’s bridge inspection team affiliated with the Defendant check the instant bridge between May 3, 2012 and May 7, 2012, 201, and received a report of the result of the inspection that the instant bridge was replaced by a part of the rupture of the rupture of the rupture of the rupture of the rupture of the rupture of the rupture of the rupture of the rupture of the rupture of the rupture of the rupture of the rupture of the rupture of the rupture of the rupture of the rupture of the rupture of the rupture of the rupture of the rupture of the rupture after the instant accident occurred.

arrow