[1] Criteria for determining defects in the construction and management of a road

[2] The case holding that in the event that the speed-preventive facilities, such as speed fluoron facilities, etc., and the central separation zone, are not installed between the two in the case where the fluorites and the fluore fluorites of the fluorites of the fluorites and the fluorites of the fluorites of the road are not installed, the defects in the construction and management of the road in competition with the driver's negligence, thereby causing traffic accidents and expanding damage

[1] The construction and management defects of a road shall be specifically determined according to social norms by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the location and location of the road, structure of the road, traffic volume, traffic conditions in the event of an accident, and the original purpose of use, and the location and shape of physical defects.

[2] The case holding that in the event that the speed-preventive facilities, such as speed fluoron facilities, etc., and the central separation zone, are not installed between the two in the case where the fluorites and the fluore fluorites of the fluorites rapid to the fluorites of the road are not installed, the defects in the construction and management of the road in competition with the driver's negligence, thereby causing traffic accidents and expanding damage

[1] [1] Article 758 (1) of the Civil Code, Article 5 (1) of the State Compensation Act / [2] Article 758 (1) of the Civil Code, Article 5 (1) of the State Compensation Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 97Da49800 delivered on February 13, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 761), Supreme Court Decision 99Da24201 delivered on January 14, 200 (Gong2000Sang, 376), Supreme Court Decision 99Da54998 delivered on April 25, 200 (Gong2000Sang, 1264)

[Court Decision 200Na1488 delivered on June 1, 200

Korea Highway Corporation (Law Firm Gangseo-dong General Law Office, Attorney Park Jae-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 128,159,84 won with 5% interest per annum from July 11, 1997 to October 12, 200 with 25% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Two minutes of the litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the remainder by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The judgment of the court below that the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 284,79,653 won with 5% interest per annum from July 11, 1997 to the date of full payment with 25% interest per annum from the day after the day of full payment to the day of this judgment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts may be viewed as having been led to confession because the parties did not dispute between themselves or the defendant did not clearly dispute the plaintiff's assertion, or according to the statements in Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 4-1, 2, 5-4, 9 through 12, 42, 43, 52, 53, 67, 11-1, 2, and 1-1, 2, and 1, respectively.

A. At around 04:40 on May 12, 1997, the Plaintiff driven the free zone of 53 Ga 2818 in Seoul, the 53 Ga 2818 in order to drive the south-do Highway located in Busan, Seocheon-dong, with the speed of about 100 km from Masan to 100 km in Busan, the speed of the upper parallel is about 426.8 km in the above Highway (hereinafter referred to as the "accident point"), and caused the above speed to the right side of the above Highway to rapidly 426.8 km in the above Highway (hereinafter referred to as the "accident point"), and caused the above speed of the vehicle to be driven by the central line and to be driven by the traffic accident of 1527 Do Gyeong-dong in Busan, Busan, and caused all of the above vehicle to be driven by the free-hand side of the above two Ga Ga o-dong in front of the above vehicle.

B. The plaintiff was prosecuted for violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents due to the above accident, and the Busan District Court sentenced the plaintiff to imprisonment without prison labor for one year and six months in the decision of September 2, 1997, and the plaintiff appealed. The above court sentenced the plaintiff to one year and one year in the decision of November 7, 1997.

C.On the other hand, on July 11, 1997, the plaintiff paid 420,000,000 won to the non-party English, the representatived family members of the above victims, and paid 7,199,480 won to the Busan East Hospital for his treatment from May 10, 1997 to July 24 of the same year.

D.At the time of the instant accident, the section of the Southern Sea Highway, including the instant accident point, from the Yongsan-do River of the Southern Sea to the Busan Metropolitan City at the time of the instant accident, was managed by the Defendant after being constructed and managed by the Defendant, and on July 28, 1998 by Busan Metropolitan City, the said section of the road and the facilities attached to the road, all of which were taken over from the Defendant and managed so far.

2. The plaintiff's ground for claim

The Plaintiff is the cause of the instant claim. The Defendant was responsible for the installation and management of the instant accident point at the time of the instant accident. The section of the Southern Sea Highway before and after the instant accident point is not only the vehicle operating along the instant accident area should be able to share and pass rapidly, but also there are sufficient safety facilities, such as the central separation zone and the railroad facilities on the surface, and the installation defects such as low speed warning, etc., such as low speed warning, etc., and there are no facilities such as low speed warning, etc. taking into account the power failure. The Plaintiff asserted that such defects were the cause of the instant accident in competition with the Plaintiff’s negligence, and that the Defendant paid the Defendant the amount of KRW 427,19,480 equivalent to the sum of damages and treatment expenses paid by the Defendant, which is 2/3 of the total damages and treatment expenses paid by the Defendant as the joint tortfeasor.

3. Determination

A. Determination as to whether the defendant's point of accident of this case was negligent in establishing and managing the point of accident of this case

In full view of the statements in Gap evidence 5-4, 51, Eul evidence 1-5, and Eul evidence 1-5 (including the paper numbers) and the result of the on-site inspection of this Court, if the Masan road, which is an exclusive road, is operated on the side of Busan, along the above south Sea Highway, the Masan road runs on the Masan-do road, and the Masan-do road runs on the right side immediately from approximately 500 meters before the arrival of the accident at the point of this case, and the Maar-si starts at the point where the Maar-si ends on the 200m above the point of this case before the point of accident. The Maar-si point of this case was 280 meters above the Mandong point of this case immediately before the point of accident, and the Masan-do point of this case was 4 lanes from the two-lane road, which was 50 meters above the Manan-do road, and there is no limit to 10 meters between the center.

In the case of construction and management of the valleys, it is necessary to make sure that there are more than six-lanes of construction of the valleys, and to make sure that there are no more than six-lanes of construction of the valleys, and to make sure that there are more than six-lanes of construction of the valleys in light of the overall circumstances such as the location of the road, the traffic volume at the time of the accident, the location of the material defects, and the shape of the road at the time of the accident (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da5498, Apr. 25, 200; 9Da5404, Feb. 25, 200). Under the provisions on the structure and facility of the road, it is necessary to install the medians of construction of the valleys at least six-lanes of construction, and if there are no more than six-lanes of construction of the valleys of the road at a low speed than that of the road at a low speed of 10 meters.

Therefore, at the time of the accident of this case, the defendant who was the constructor and manager of the above South Sea Highway including the point of accident of this case at the time of the accident of this case is liable to compensate for the damage suffered by the plaintiff and the damage caused by the accident of this case.

As to this, the defendant argued that at the time of the accident in this case, the road management authority for the point of accident in this case was located in Busan Metropolitan City, and the defendant is only the contractor of the above road, and does not bear the above responsibility. However, according to the above evidence, it appears that the defendant was responsible for the construction and management authority and responsibility until he transfers the management duties between the above area of the South Sea Highway including the accident point in this case to Busan Metropolitan City on July 28, 1998. Further, even if the defendant did not have the road management authority at the time of the accident in this case, the defect in the accident point in this case as seen above is most of the construction defect in this case, and the defendant who constructed it can be liable for damages caused by the defect in this case

In addition, the defendant asserts that there is a letter of 2.6% £« at the point of the accident of this case, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the above assertion contrary to the above facts.

B. Determination on the amount of damages liability of the plaintiff and the defendant

According to Gap evidence Nos. 5-16, 17, and 43, the above utilization is a male who was born on December 1, 1958 and worked in the 1st century production department at the ridge 1, 1958, and the above operation film is a female who was born on July 26, 1963, and the above transition is a male who was born on July 16, 1986, and the above transition is a male who was born on March 2, 1989. According to the above evidence, the above use is deemed to have no reason for any negligence or consideration as to the occurrence of the accident of this case. Accordingly, if the plaintiff and the defendant were to compensate the above victims of the accident of this case, the amount of compensation for the above operation should be calculated as shown in attached Form 1, 196, 197, 301, 197, 1081, 197, 197, 2010, 197, 197, 17, 1017, 197

C. Determination on the percentage of fault of the plaintiff and the defendant

Comprehensively taking account of the above evidence and evidence Nos. 5-6, 36, 45, 50, and 51, the Plaintiff started from Gwangju Metropolitan City at night at around 12: (a) and continued to drive on the side of Busan Metropolitan City along the Southern Sea Highway; (b) as a result, there was a physical and mental difficulty in getting out of the new wall; (c) at the time, the accident location of this case was not good; (d) the aftermath did not fright; and (e) the aftermath coming out of the inside; and (e) the Plaintiff was driving on the south Sea Highway with due care to reduce the speed and to pay considerable attention to the second line; (e) at that time, the Plaintiff was at the time driving at a speed of 10 km speed per hour, a maximum speed of 100 km of the instant accident location; and (e) at that time, the Plaintiff’s negligence did not lead to the expansion of the accident location of the instant road at the point where the accident occurred without considering the situation of the accident.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, as seen above, it is clear in the calculation of the damages amounting to KRW 420,00,000 paid by the Plaintiff to four bereaved families, such as the above utilization damages. As such, the above amount is 427,19,480 (420,000 + 7,199,480 + 19,480), which is the sum of the above 7,199,480, paid by the Plaintiff for one’s own medical expenses, shall be 427,19,480 (420,000 + 7,199,480) paid by the Plaintiff for damages caused by the instant accident. Accordingly, the Defendant shall, in response to the Plaintiff’s reimbursement, pay to the Plaintiff KRW 128,159,84 (427,19,480 x30%) equivalent to the above 30

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above 128,159,84 won and damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from July 11, 1997 to October 12, 200, which is the date of this decision, and 25% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.