2014Na2008514 Compensation, etc. (as for damages)

1. A;

2. B

Plaintiff 2 is a minor, and the legal representative A

[Judgment of the court below]

Mangsan Tunnels Co., Ltd.

○○○○

Law Firm ○○, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○○

Incheon District Court Decision 2013Gahap5670 Decided February 6, 2014

June 11, 2014

July 2, 2014

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the judgment of the first instance to the plaintiff A, KRW 81,80,213, and KRW 54,533,476 to the plaintiff B.

For each of them, 5% per annum from March 16, 2013 to the date of this judgment, and from the following day:

C. By the date of full payment, 20% interest per annum shall be paid.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff A is the husband of the deceased who died from the instant traffic accident as seen below, and the Plaintiff B is the deceased’s children, and the Defendant is a juristic person that manages and operates the Mansansan Complex located in Man-dong, Nam-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “the instant fare station”), its connection roads, and its affiliated facilities.

B. On March 16, 2013: (a) around 30: (b) around 30, the deceased driven the car of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and passed the mountain tunnel from the boundary of the Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City to the boundary of the boundary of the boundary of the boundary of the boundary of the road. (c) At the instant charge, the deceased did not enter the entrance of the settlement of the charge by lowering the speed of the said car, and did not enter the entrance of the settlement of the charge, and died of the concrete separation zone installed between the entrance and the entrance No. 3 and No. 4 from the left side of the said vehicle to the hospital, and then died of the said concrete separation zone from the front part of the said car to the hospital (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 8 (including branch numbers if there are numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs, while the defendant owned, managed, and operated the tunnel and the instant fare station in Mansan, ① installed only two starting containers (clor Clor Cone: a mobile sign installed on the road to restrict traffic) without installing a starting line guidance sign as provided in the "Guidelines for the Installation and Management of Road Safety Facilities" (hereinafter referred to as the "Guidelines"), while closing the entrance connected to the bus line that the deceased was proceeding, and prevented the deceased from entering the road to a slor Cone, and ② the structure between the entrance and the entrance of the entrance of the 100 km each hour according to the Guidelines, ② the structure between the entrance and the entrance of the 3rd Clorone was installed, but the deceased neglected to enter the above fare and caused death between the entrance and the entrance of the above 3676 billion won and the damages of the deceased, 3676 billion won and the damages of the deceased, 3676 billion won and the damages of the deceased, 3676 billion won and the damages of the deceased, 3676 billion won and 367.767.7 billion won.

3. Determination

In light of the above evidence, the accident time of this case is the late 3:30 p.m. of the new wall, and the 5th entrance from the left side of the total of 6 entrances installed at the fare station was operated normally. The 3rd entrance or the 4th entrance of the deceased approaching, two local containers were installed at the entrance of the 3rd entrance or the 4th entrance, and the absorption facilities installed between the entrance and the entrance at the time are not 'CC 3rd Crinc tank system' as claimed by the plaintiffs.

However, in full view of the above evidence and evidence evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the following facts are as follows. The charge station of this case securing a sufficient distance from tunnels to the charge station in a distance of about 200 meters from the Mangsan Tunnels, and the relevant section is flat and long and there was no particular obstacle to the view of the road. The charge station is a relatively large amount of the entrance for settlement of accounts and a very strong lighting operation at the time (in addition to the charge station itself, the management office in the right side of the charge station operated a lighting of the building at the charge station), and it seems impossible to distinguish it if normal operation of the vehicle, and it is not possible to distinguish it from the charge station of this case. Although separate equipment leading the fifth-class entrance of the vehicle operating at the time, separate equipment leading the entrance of the vehicle from the entrance of the above vehicle (e.g., the speed of the vehicle, etc. claimed by the plaintiffs) but it is acknowledged that the vehicle of this case did not pass by the speed of the entrance of each of the above vehicle at the time of the accident.

According to the above facts, the accident of this case seems to have occurred due to a serious unilateral negligence, which is irrelevant to the vehicle's proceeding route, without distinguishing the entrance of the fare station of this case from the deceased due to a stroke driving, etc. (if it is assumed that the accident was identified at the latest, it would have shocked with the local container in the case of general driver).

In addition, the defect in the installation and preservation of a structure under Article 758(1) of the Civil Act refers to a state in which a structure fails to meet the safety ordinarily required according to its use. In determining whether such safety is equipped, the determination shall be based on whether the installer and custodian of the structure has fulfilled the duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the risk of the structure (see Supreme Court Decision 99Da39548 delivered on January 14, 200). Even if an accident occurred in a structure, if the accident occurred as a result of an exceptional behavior not in compliance with the ordinary usage of the structure, the owner or possessor of the structure is not obliged to take protective measures against such accident.

Furthermore, the shock absorption facility is installed in a place where a vehicle is at the risk of collision with the structure on the road beyond the main lane, and the front of the charge station is relatively low, so it is difficult to deem that the vehicle has failed to fulfill its duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms in light of the form of the charge station in this case or the measures of speed limit, etc. Furthermore, in light of the fact that the accident in this case is the result of the exceptional behavior, such as over-speed and neglect of the duty of care in the front and the front and the front and the short speed limit, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have been obliged to take a separate safety measure.

Ultimately, the above assertion by the plaintiffs is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justified with this conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-seok

Judges Dok-type

Judges Hah-sik