In a case where the State is the person to whom the affairs of the management of the school, and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City is liable for damages as the person to whom the expenses of the school are borne by the school, whether it may be set up against another joint tortfeasor who is the claimant under Article 6 (2) of the State Compensation Act (negative), and in such a case, the nature of the State and Seoul Special Metropolitan

In case where Twitter conflicts with a general national highway in Seoul Special Metropolitan City and collapses of the land surface due to the death of bus drivers passing through the bottom of the land surface, and the Korean Freight Trucking Association concluded a mutual aid agreement on the above Trackter as to the above Trackter, Defendant Republic of Korea is the person to whom the above Tracker's management affairs belongs, Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City is liable for damages as the person to whom the above Tracker's expenses belong, and Article 6 (2) of the State Compensation Act applies to determining the scope of internal indemnity between the State and the Si/Gun/Gu, which is the person to whom the management authority is the owner of the road, and thus cannot be asserted against the joint tortfeasor who is the person to whom the right to indemnity is the joint tortfeasor. Thus, Defendants are the joint and several liability joint and several obligors with respect to the entire part of the defendants' liability (excluding the whole part of the damages to be borne by the Korean Freight Trucking Association) and it does not constitute a divided liability by Defendant.

Article 6 of the State Compensation Act, Articles 22 and 56 of the Road Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jae-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

National Freight Trucking Association (Attorney Choi-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul Special Metropolitan City and one other (Law Firm Tae-gu General Law Office, Attorneys Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 97Na20061, 20078 delivered on August 22, 1997

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The lower court acknowledged the following facts in full view of the evidence.

A. On October 30, 1990, the paper rock of 30 meters wide from the paper rock ginseng located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul to the U. S. S. S. S. S. S., located in Dongdaemun-gu (hereinafter “instant road”) is designated as a national highway pursuant to the Presidential Decree No. 13154 on October 30, 199, and the defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “Defendant Si”) installed a bridge for the purpose of reporting to citizens (hereinafter “the instant land bridge”) on June 14, 1971, on the road of this case among the roads of this case, the road of this case is located within the jurisdiction of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “ Seongbuk-gu”), which was a co-defendant of the first instance trial.

B. At the first time, the instant road was installed on both sides of the road by which the height of the vehicle passing through the lower is limited to 4.5 meters. However, around November 1991, the Defendant’s market at the time of the accident (hereinafter referred to as the “accident in this case”), at the time of the instant accident (hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”), the limitation sign on the north side of the said road was not corrected, even though the height of the road actually passing through the instant road was lower than 4.5 meters, unlike the instant signboard’s limitation mark, and even when it was lower than 4.5 meters, the restriction sign on the north side of the said road was displayed again on the south side of the instant road and around November 1, 1992.

C. Under Article 5 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Delegation of Administrative Authority (Ordinance No. 2523, hereinafter the "Ordinance on the Delegation of Administrative Authority"), the defendant Si delegated the maintenance and management of the instant landing school to the head of Seongbuk-gu who is the head of the competent Gu, and actually managed the instant landing school at the time of the instant accident by entrusting the maintenance and management of the instant landing school to the head of Seongbuk-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Safety Control of Public Facilities (Ordinance No. 759, Feb. 10, 1993; hereinafter the "Rules on the Safety Control of Public Facilities"), the head of Seongbuk-gu Office ordered the head of Seongbuk-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City on August 13, 1994 to investigate and report the height of the traffic restriction of the instant landing school on the 30th of the same month after receiving an order from the head of Seongbuk-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City on the 30th of the same month.

D. Meanwhile, among the road facility management cards managed by the head of Seongbuk-gu Office at that time, the old card was written with the height of passage of the instant land by 4.2m and 4.4m on the new card.

E. On November 19, 1994, the driver of the non-party 1, who is the non-party 1, who is the driver of the non-party 2, the company of the non-party 2 (hereinafter the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the driver of the company of the non-party 2, connected the non-party 1.46 meters Tracker in height to the (vehicle registration No. 1 omitted), the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 3.04m in height to the Tracker (hereinafter the "Tracker of this case"), loaded one structure, which is a material for the construction of the urban highway with a height of 28.5m above the Tracker, loaded one structure with a diameter of 3 cm in diameter, and entered Seoul through the lacter.

F. At around 09:50 the following day, Nonparty 1 was driving the instant box and found at approximately 20 meters from the front side of the instant road, which was in progress along the second line of the instant road, from the Hangro-ri-ri University, that the height on the height limitation sign installed in the center of the north side of the instant overpasses was 4.5 meters.

G. The above non-party 1, who is driving, takes into account the fact that the total height of the above twits (including loaded goods and chains combining them) is 4.5 meters away from the vehicle and the load of the cargo. The height of the instant twits is also 4.5 meters, and when passing through the bottom of the instant twits, it is anticipated that the above twits loaded at the upper end of the above twits would be at the risk of collision with the above twits at the bottom of the above twits due to road diggings or vehicle vibrations, etc. Thus, the 2nd twits loaded at the above twits and the twits loaded at the above twits and the twits loaded at the front end of the above 2nd twits without any duty of care to safely go through the direction of collision or contact with the twits and the twits at the bottom of the above 2nd twits and the remaining part of the 2nd m.

H. Accordingly, the mother of the above deceased non-party 2 and non-party 4, non-party 5, and non-party 6, who are their siblings, filed a lawsuit claiming damages against the non-party company by the Seoul District Court 94Gahap19936, and the non-party company was sentenced to the non-party 3 to the non-party 4,50,000 won and the non-party 5 and the non-party 6 to pay 3,000,000 won and damages for delay. The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

I. On June 23, 1995, the Plaintiff was a mutual aid project operator under the Land Transport Promotion Act who entered into a mutual aid agreement with the company of this case, and paid 276,000,000 won out of the above judgment amount to the attorney of the above non-party 3 et al. on behalf of the non-party company, etc., and was exempted from the remainder principal and damages for delay up to that time. The Plaintiff paid 1,60,000 won to the attorney-at-law who represented the non-party company in the lawsuit of this case as litigation expenses around that time, and thus, the Plaintiff paid 1,60,000 won to the non-party company. The Plaintiff’s damages and expenses incurred therefrom were 277,60,000 won in total.

2. The court below held that even if the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor became the road management agency of the road of this case under Article 22 (2) of the Road Act based on the above facts acknowledged, it shall be deemed that the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor is delegated by the defendant Republic of Korea to manage the road of this case and the defendant Republic of Korea bears the liability for damages caused by defects in the installation and management of the road of this case as seen above as the owner of the road of this case who is in charge of managing the road of this case, and the defendant Si bears the liability for damages caused by the accident of this case as the local government to which the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor belongs under Article 56 of the Road Act, which is the owner of the road of this case. Therefore, the defendants are obligated to respond to the plaintiff

3. As to the Defendants’ ground of appeal No. 1

The defendants asserts that since the Seongbuk-gu head of Seongbuk-gu Office is re-entrusted to the head of Seongbuk-gu pursuant to the Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on the Delegation of Administrative Authority, Seongbuk-gu, a local government to which the head of Seongbuk-gu belongs, shall be liable for damages caused by the instant accident as a person who bears the burden under Article 56 of the Road Act, and therefore, the liability for damages and the duty of indemnity against the plaintiff shall not be 1/2 of all damages, but be 1/3.

As determined by the court below, Defendant Republic of Korea is a joint and several liability subject to the management affairs of the instant land, and Defendant Si is liable for damages as a person bearing the expenses of the instant land. Article 6 (2) of the State Compensation Act applies only to determining the scope of internal indemnity between the State that is the managing body of the road and the Si/Gun/Gu, which is the managing body of the road, and it cannot be asserted against the joint tortfeasor who is the right of indemnity (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da2684 delivered on January 26, 1993). Thus, regardless of whether Seongbuk-gu is liable for damages as the person bearing the expenses of the instant land, the Defendants shall comply with the Plaintiff’s indemnity as to each joint and several liability as to the portion of the total expenses of the Defendants (excluding the portion to be borne by the Plaintiff out of the total amount of damages), and it does not affect the internal indemnity between the Defendants and Seongbuk-gu.

Therefore, the above grounds of appeal by the defendants cannot be accepted without examining whether the re-election to the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government is valid.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in finding the Defendants’ obligation to the Plaintiff as a divided obligation, but the Plaintiff did not appeal, and the Defendants cannot change to the disadvantage of the Defendants in the instant case where only the Defendants appealed, and such erroneous judgment does not constitute a ground for reversal of the judgment below.

4. As to the Defendants’ ground of appeal No. 2

In a claim for damages due to a tort, the fact-finding or determination of the rate of comparative negligence is an exclusive authority of a fact-finding court unless it is deemed significantly unreasonable in light of the principle of equity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da24340, Jan. 23, 1996). Therefore, the court below's finding the ratio of comparative negligence of Nonparty 1 as a whole 20% based on the above facts in the judgment below is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the principle of equity as to the ratio of comparative negligence as pointed out.

The Defendants’ grounds of appeal as to this cannot be accepted.

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.

Justices Seo Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)