[1] Criteria to determine the specificity and peculiarity of river management, which is a natural structure, and whether there is a defect in river management

[2] Whether safety can be acknowledged in a case where a river which has been repaired in accordance with the relevant provisions such as the River Act and the basic plan for river maintenance set by the management agency according to the river maintenance plan, etc. meets the planned flood discharge stipulated in the above basic plan, etc. (affirmative in principle)

[1] Article 5 of the State Compensation Act / [2] Article 5 (1) of the State Compensation Act, Article 17 of the River Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2001Da48057 decided Oct. 23, 2003 (Gong2003Ha, 2219) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2005Da65678 decided Sept. 21, 2007 (Gong2007Ha, 1644)

Attached List of Plaintiffs (Law Firm LLC et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Gwangju City (Law Firm tower, Attorneys Park Jong-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2013Na2005655, 2005662 decided January 23, 2014

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the allegation in the grounds of appeal regarding defects in the installation and management of the river and the drainage pumps

(1) A river, which is a natural structure, has no room for the management agency to choose not to install the river, and there are many natural cases where it is naturally existing in a state where risks are spreading, and there are many cases where it is impossible to remove risks by simple means. The management of a river is intended for natural phenomena that are flowing water. It is difficult to predict the source of flowing water, such as the size, scope, time of occurrence, etc. of floods, as well as the source of flowing water, and in fact it is difficult to predict the possible effects of flood generation, etc., and it is inevitable to grasp the possible effects of flood by experiment that actually carries out certain activities, and it is inevitable to grasp it by actual flood. In addition, the river management by the State or a river management agency has a special nature that can only be carried out based on flood experience in the past. Moreover, it requires a long period of time to complete the repair work of a river, which is large-scale construction works, and the means of water control are set according to the characteristics of river basin and river basin, so it is necessary to find a method suitable for its characteristics.

Therefore, the existence of defects in river management shall be determined on a comprehensive basis, taking into account the past circumstances such as the scale of flood damage, frequency of occurrence, causes of damage, rainfalls, river basin topography and other natural conditions, the situation of land use, and the existence and degree of urgency requiring repair. It shall be determined on the basis of whether the river management is deemed to have satisfied the safety of time in light of the general level of river management for the same type, the same scale, the river maintenance plan for the same scale, and the social norms under the above financial, time, time, and technical constraints. Meanwhile, in a case where the river management agency has completed the repair of a river yet to be repaired due to the fulfillment of the planned flood and planned flood level as set by the river maintenance master plan, etc., if the river is being maintained due to the fulfillment of the planned flood and planned flood level as set by the river maintenance master plan, etc., it shall be reasonable to view that the river is ordinarily safe for its use, unless there are special circumstances such as erroneous setting the planned flood and planned flood level or neglecting to change it immediately thereafter.

(2) Based on the facts stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that, even if the water level of Han River was increased due to the discharge of Han River basin, and the water level of Han River basin was also increased to the extent immediately preceding the inundation, it appears that the occurrence of the flood disaster in this case seems to have directly caused the water flow of the river basin. ② The 30-year frequency of the instant improvement plan adopted in 198, meets the standards for establishing and operating regional disaster prevention performance targets; ③ The high-speed water level of the river basin at the time of the instant flood basin was considerably high at the time of the instant flood control plan to the extent that it was difficult to view that the Plaintiffs, as the water level of Han River basin was 5,000,000 and high-speed water level of the instant river basin at the time of the instant flood control plan to the extent that it was difficult to determine that the water level of the instant river basin was concentrating to the extent that it would not have any effect on the river basin at the time of the instant flood control plan.

Examining the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable. In so doing, it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on State liability due to defects in the construction and management of public structures and official negligence, and by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

2. As to the allegation in the grounds of appeal on the failure to cope with at the time of the flood damage in this case

The allegation in this part of the grounds of appeal is ultimately purporting to dispute the fact-finding by the lower court that did not recognize the negligence of the public officials belonging to the Defendant regarding the response to the flood disaster of this case. The recognition of facts and the cooking and evaluation of evidence, which form the basis thereof, belong to the exclusive authority of the lower court as a fact-finding court, unless they exceeded the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence. The lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds

3. Conclusion

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.

[Attachment] List of Plaintiffs: omitted

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)