Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On May 5, 2012, at around 15:30, the Plaintiff: (a) boarded the bicycle lane on the south side of a riding boat in Incheon, from the main entrance of the road to the main entrance of the road; (b) went beyond the front wheels of the said bicycle on the stone located from the bank surface of the slope of about 40 degrees (hereinafter “the stone of this case”); and (c) the instant stone of this case was the size of two adult drinking roads.
B. The accident site of this case is the bicycle lane of the straight line, the weather on the day of the accident is clear and there was no factor to specifically obstruct the plaintiff's view.
C. The defendant is the above embankment and the bicycle rider.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3-1 to 6 video, witness B's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. In light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence No. 3-1 to No. 6 video of the occurrence of the liability for damages, namely, it appears that there is a stone on the surface of the bank side of the bicycle lane, and there is no other route that can flow into the bicycle lane, it is reasonable to view the stone of this case as away from the surface of the bank side of the bicycle lane.
However, there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant installed a facility to prevent the Defendant from flowing the stones on the bicycle lane or managed other dangerous factors on the road as above, and it is difficult to view that the Defendant fulfilled all the preventive measures to the extent that it is generally required by social norms.
Ultimately, the accident of this case is deemed to have occurred due to the defect in the construction and management of the bicycle lane by the defendant. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damages caused by the accident of this case
However, the following circumstances can be comprehensively taken into account the overall purport of the arguments, i.e., the location of the accident in this case does not seem to frequently occur, and this is the case.