206dan82615 Reimbursements

A Stock Company

Korea

April 4, 2007

May 30, 2007

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 20,186,00 won with 5% per annum from May 3, 2005 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by taking into account the whole arguments and images of Gap evidence 1, 2, 3-1, 4, 5-1, 2, 6-1, 9-2, 3, 8 through 47, and the whole purport of arguments:

A. B, around 00:23 on March 3, 2005, operated a D tank liver vehicle (mati mobile oil vehicle) owned by C, and proceeded on the national highway No. 36 in front of the F. 36 located in the Gyeongcheon-gun, Gyeongcheon-gun, Gyeongcheon-gun, the former owner located in the right side of the direction toward the right side of the river 8 meters high (hereinafter referred to as "the accident of this case") and was received a river retaining wall of 2.3 meters high (hereinafter referred to as "river retaining wall") at the right side of the river (hereinafter referred to as "the accident of this case").

B. Around April 14, 2005, B died at the site due to the instant accident, and thereafter, the said D vehicle was scrapped on and around April 14, 2005.C. The Plaintiff, as an insurer that entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with C with respect to the vehicle involved, paid KRW 20,465,000 for the damages of one’s own body, around April 15, 2005, and around May 2, 2005, KRW 30,000 for the damages of one’s own body.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment as to the plaintiff

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) As the Defendant did not install a drick on an accident site in particular on a river bridge, and the accident vehicle fell from the river bridge and causes death and damage to the vehicle's destruction, the accident in this case is caused by the competition between the foregoing defects in the construction and management of the road and the driver's care in B.

(2) Therefore, according to the legal principles of subrogation by insurers stipulated in Article 682 of the Commercial Act, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 50,465,00 (20,465,000 + KRW 30,000), which is equivalent to 40% of the Defendant’s liability ratio (50,465,000 + 0,000) out of the total amount of the above agreed amount of KRW 50,465,00,00, which is the Defendant’s liability ratio.

B. Determination

(1) Facts of recognition

The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged on the entries and images of Gap evidence 9-2, 3, 49, Eul evidence 1, 2, 3, 4-1, 2, 6, 7-1 through 8, 8, 9, and the whole purport of oral proceedings.

(A) The instant accident point is one-lane road along which a median line is installed, and the speed limit is 60km.

(B) The weather on the day of the instant accident was clear and the surface was dry, and there was no traffic-related factors such as road works, broken vehicles, and pre-accidents.

(c)in the direction of the end of the road -0.349% to -1.923%, which does not affect the driving speed of the vehicle.

(D) Prior to the point of accident, there are about 73 meters visesed sections of the horizontal width, and the straight section leads to the straight line. From the starting point of the valley, up to the end point of the straight line and the front and rearway, prevention and packing of the road surface is made. On the outside side of the valley, there was a drails, a reticer sign, and a traffic safety sign (the maximum speed control sign, etc.) installed to enable drivers to know the shape and the frame of the road at the night and night.

(E) After the completion of the above horizontal ray section, approximately 400 meters of the straight line, the instant accident point, namely, the F road, was located at approximately 60 meters after the commencement of the above straight line and there was no obstacle at all.

(F) At the time of the instant accident, even after the said ray section was finished and the straight line section was connected to the left-hand side, the Gails continued to have been installed more than 40 meters in 120 meters prior to the arrival of F (including the Gails installed in the said gales section). However, F was located at the point at which the said Gails finished at the point at which the 120-meter distance was 20 meters away (including the Gails installed in the said gales section).

(G) At the time of the instant accident, the speed of the vehicle at the time of the instant accident is presumed to be at the speed of 73 m to 76 km per hour in calculating on the basis of the left mark.

(h) The low-accidentd river is a small river that combines with the valley, which is not a separate name, and there is a bridge on the river (the defendant expressed that it is a "waterway rock," but hereinafter referred to as a "bridge for convenience").

(i) B resided in Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun at the time of the instant accident, and worked as a driver of a mobile station at the same Ri station.

(j) At the time of the instant accident, B continued to proceed with the instant accident while neglecting the duty of ex officio care, and the accident vehicle went beyond the two straight lines and went into operation after a collision with the former owner (which was installed before reaching the said bridge) which was located near F, and was located outside the right side of the road.

(2) Determination

(A) The defect in the construction or management of a public structure under Article 5 (1) of the State Compensation Act refers to a state in which the public structure is not equipped with safety ordinarily required for its use. However, the defect in the construction or management of the public structure can not be said to be a defect in the construction or management of the public structure merely because the public structure is not in a state of completeness and has any defect in its function. In determining whether the safety is satisfied, the standard should be to determine whether the construction or management 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 use of the public structure in question and the current status of the site and the current status of the use thereof. In other words, the defect in the construction or management of the public structure can not be acknowledged if it is proved that the defect in the public structure is under circumstances where the construction or management of the public structure could not affect the construction or management of the public structure.

(1) Article 21 (1) of the Act on the Protection of Land, etc. for the Protection of Land, etc. for the Protection of Land, etc. for the Protection of Land, etc. for the Protection of Land, etc. for the Protection of Land, etc. for the Protection of Land, etc. for the Protection of Land, etc. for the Protection of Land,

(B) With respect to the instant case, there is no evidence to prove that the instant accident occurred repeatedly at the point of accident prior to the instant accident, the instant accident occurred at the point where 60 meters have passed since the valley section was terminated and the straight line was opened, the straight line continued to have been installed even after the straight line was commenced, and it is not necessary to install the straight line in preparation for any accidents that may occur on the road, and it is sufficient to take measures to the extent that is generally required by social norms in proportion to danger. In this case, the point of accident is not an acute slope but a straight line of 60 meters in a straight line after the completion of the horizontal straight line as seen earlier, and the Defendant did not need to install the straight line at the point of accident because there was no need to install the straight line at the point of accident. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have any ordinary safety and management of the road as alleged by the ground that there was no safety defect at the time of the instant accident.

(C) In addition, it is presumed that the speed of the accident vehicle exceeds the speed limit, and the progress of the accident vehicle was the degree of exceeding it after the collision of the electric poles constructed of reinforced concrete on the right side of the road outside of the straight line, and the progress of the accident vehicle was the type of collision with the retaining wall installed on the river side by running a more than 8 meters, and the accident vehicle was the type of collision with the retaining wall installed on the river side. ③ As seen earlier, as seen earlier, the accident vehicle was down on the bridge section and the dives are not installed on the bridge section. In full view of the fact that the accident vehicle was constructed outside the road before the bridge section, while there is no other evidence to conclude that the accident vehicle was a bridge section, the accident was caused by the previous negligence of B, which led to extreme negligence, and thus, it cannot be recognized that proximate causal relation between the damage caused by the accident and the damage caused by the accident and the Defendant’s building on the bridge, in particular, on the road section.

(D) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s allegation that is premised on the existence of proximate causal link between the occurrence of the damage caused by the instant accident and the installation of the divesday is without merit (However, there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact on the dives section after the instant accident, but such fact alone does not necessarily require the installation of dives, etc. at the time of the instant accident, or there is no defect in the construction and management of the road).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Laos