Plaintiff 1 and three others (Law Firm Shinsung, Attorneys Lee Jae-hoon et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Gangwon-do et al. (Law Firm Multi-Hunting et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

August 20, 2013

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Gahap76312 Decided May 28, 2013

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs falling under the following order of payment shall be revoked.

The Defendants pay to each of the Plaintiffs 1 and 2 37,51,621 won, Plaintiff 3, and 4 respectively, 1,000,000 won, and 5% per annum from July 29, 2012 to August 29, 2013, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining appeals are dismissed.

3. The total cost of a lawsuit shall be borne individually by each party.

4. The portion of payment of the amount under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendants shall pay to each plaintiff 1 and 2 108,012,032 won, each of the plaintiffs 3 and 4 5,000,000 won, each of which shall be 5% per annum from July 29, 2012 to the date the judgment of the first instance is rendered, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment (the plaintiff 1 has reduced the claims of the first instance court).

1. Basic facts

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The parties' assertion

1) The Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendants are liable to compensate for damages under Articles 5(1) and 6 of the State Compensation Act, inasmuch as they were negligent in failing to take measures to prevent the occurrence of a water-related accident while playing water in the vicinity of yellow boom, in a deep depth, and thus, the Defendants are liable to compensate for the damages under Article 5(1) and 6 of the State Compensation Act, since they were responsible to prevent the occurrence of a water-related accident, including the installation of a tag or warning sign.

2) As to this, the Defendants established and implemented a multiple plan to prevent water play in the summer, and in particular, the Defendant Jong-gun, at the entrance, etc. of the Heung Park Park-gun located adjacent to the river of this case, issued warning signs, placards, etc. to prevent water play in the river of this case, giving caution in water play, despite warning that water play is deep, it appears that the above warning was not properly viewed on the wind moving to the river of this case through the forest path, rather than the river entrance created by the Deceased, and its behaviors, including the Deceased, including the Deceased, have moved to the area near the Yellow Rock where the accident of this case occurred, without any safety equipment, even though they were aware that water play in the vicinity of the river of this case. Thus, the Defendants asserted that the Defendants were not liable for the death of this case.

B. Determination

1) Whether the Defendants are in the position of the construction or manager of public structures or of the burden of expenses

According to the above facts, the Governor of Gangwon-do is a person in charge of the maintenance and management of the river in this case, and the Y is entrusted with the maintenance and management of the river in this case, and the Y bears the responsibility of the maintenance and management of each river in this case. Thus, if causation between the defects in the installation and management of the river in this case and the accident in this case is acknowledged, the defendant Do-do, the local government to which the Governor of Gangwon-do belongs, the head of the Y-do, the local government to which the head of the Y belongs, shall be liable pursuant to Article 5 (1) of the State Compensation Act. The defendant Ha

Defendant Jung-gun asserted to the effect that the river of this case was not designated and announced as a village management and resort site, and that the fee was collected by selling garbage bags instead of admission fees, but this is merely for the suppression of the generation of waste and the preservation of environment under the Wastes Control Act, and it does not include the duties of maintenance and management of the river of this case delegated by Defendant Gangwon-do on the grounds of the fact that it differs from the duties of management of the river of this case. However, as seen earlier, as long as the duties of maintenance and repair of the river of this case and inspection of the status of river management are delegated separately to the head of Jung-do under the provisions on delegation and entrustment of administrative authority and the Gangwon-do Ordinance on the Delegation of Administrative Delegation, even if the river of this case was not designated and managed as resort site, the maintenance and management responsibility of the river of this case cannot be denied, and

2) Whether there is a defect in the installation and management of the instant river

A) The term “defect in the construction or management of a public structure” as provided in Article 5(1) of the State Compensation Act refers to the state in which the public structure is not equipped with ordinary safety according to its intended purpose. It cannot be said that there is a defect in the construction or management of a public structure solely with any defect in its function. Whether such a safety is equipped is based on whether the installer or manager fulfilled his/her duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required in proportion to the danger of the public structure in light of social norms, such as the use of the public structure in question, the present state of the installation site, and the situation of the use thereof. It is objectively and objectively deemed that there is no possibility and possibility of a loss due to the defect in the construction or management of the public structure, namely, in a situation under which the installer or manager of the public structure cannot affect the construction or management of the public structure. Meanwhile, in the management of a natural public structure, it is difficult to recognize the defect in the construction or management of the public structure to prevent the danger of a river accident, which is its surrounding surrounding environment, by taking account of a specific river accident.

B) The following facts are acknowledged in full view of the evidence Nos. 6, A 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 10, B, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 14, evidence Nos. 3, evidence Nos. 3, evidence Nos. 5, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, and 14, the images of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 12, the fact-finding results in the inquiry of Non-Party 4’s testimony by Non-Party

(1) The instant river does not reach the average depth of the river running side of Heung Park, and was created within Heung Park Park Park, which can enter the instant river on the road. However, the instant river can be accessed into the instant river by passing through the surrounding forests as it is not high from the bank installed by the river side and the forest created within the amusement park is not pushed away.

(2) On June 13, 2012, the Defendant Jeong-gun, which was particularly managed in order to create a re-path of wages, was designated and publicly announced as a village management resort, and was promoted as one of the scenic places in good faith, and was particularly managed by the residents of the village in charge of the management, but did not have collected the fees by installing the management office or setting the fees, instead of collecting user fees.

(3) On the other hand, at the entrance of Heung Park, a sign and banner containing the phrase “water play cautions” has been installed, and at the entrance of Heung Park into the river of this case, a warning sign and banner containing the phrase “a water depth caution,” respectively, under the name of the head of the relevant Gun. On the other hand, a banner is installed, under the name of the head of the relevant Gun and the chief of the relevant Gun, along with the phrase “a simple statement on the use of life-saving structure equipment”, “a life-saving equipment to receive life jackets, life jackets, and life-saving equipment”, “a water play safety rules are observed for the prevention of accidents,” and “a large number of life-saving equipment” are installed.

In the area where the depth of water is highly likely to cause safety accidents, this area shall observe the following matters and see the plenary session. ① By entering the area where the table is installed, the head of the party in charge of the election of the party in charge of the election of the party in charge of the election of the party in charge of the election of the party in charge of the election of the party in charge of the election of the party in charge of the election of the party in charge of the election of the party in charge of the election of the party in charge of the election of the party in charge of the election of the party in charge of the election of the party in charge of the election of the party

However, unlike the water play precautions above, the river on the side of the Heung Park did not have a tag prohibiting water play in the dangerous area.

(4) The Yellow Rock, where the instant accident occurred, is a natural stone, protruding the instant river from the surface of the 415-line local highway located adjacent to Heung Park, to the river of this case, the height from the river bed up to 5 to 6 meters. The lower part below is 1.5 to 2 meters deep, where the flow and flow of the river appeared as the water on the upper stream, with the water on the upper stream, and not only on the road, but also on the side of Heung Kung Park Park, allowing the river, the depth of which is unfluent, to be obstructed on the yellow burk.

(5) The deceased, a middle student, entered Heung Park, a park, with the opposite direction rather than the entrance, carried out a sprinking death in the vicinity of the toilet, and did not use the way created in the amusement park. The accident of this case occurred when he moved the river of this case to the area near the yellow boom located adjacent to the roadside where the river of this case was cut off by visiting the river of this case in an area beyond the embankment installed in the river by leading the forest to a deep place for ice ice ice ice, and he moved to the area near the yellow boom located adjacent to the roadside where the river of this case was cut off. The accident of this case occurred when he moved to the middle sprinking part of the Yellow boom, which was made by the cement of the Yellow burk, and moved to the middle sprinked part of the Yellow burk, with the depth of the water.

(6) At the time of the instant accident, safety signs, etc. were not installed in the vicinity of the Yellow Rock, and there was no warning signs, etc. indicating the risk of water play on the bank of the instant river located in the direction that the Deceased moved, forest paths in Heung Park, or yellow boom, and no blocking facilities were installed.

C) According to the above facts, there was an amusement park used by the general public in the vicinity of the Yellow Rock, where the accident of this case occurred, and the depth of the above Yellow Rock was much more deep than 1.5 meters to 2 meters above the surrounding area, and there is a high risk that the general public visiting the amusement park would have suffered from the following accidents. Thus, the Defendants, who are responsible for the installation and management of the river of this case, had a manager appointed a manager to prohibit water play in the vicinity of the site of this case, or install dangerous signs or floating signs in the vicinity of the site of the accident, etc., to prevent water play in the vicinity of the site of this case, or to take protective measures more than the river basin in the vicinity of the site of this case. However, despite the fact that the Defendants were responsible for the construction and management of the river of this case, the Defendants were not the deceased and his family members at the entrance of the river of this case, but the construction of the river of this case, which was the river of this case.

3) Limitation on liability for damages

According to the above facts and the above evidence, it is acknowledged that the deceased ice dice dice dice dice and play in a place made by cement from the front knife of the Yellow Rock, and water play into the bottom of the yellow knife, and the depth of the body of the deceased dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice with water in the middle sloping part of the yellow knife, and suffered the accident in this case. The deceased dice 2 knew the deceased that the depth near the yellow knife in the front knife of the accident. The above negligence of the deceased is also the cause of the accident in this case (In this regard, the defendants' discharge claim is rejected as there is no reason) and it is reasonable to limit the defendants' responsibility to 20% in light of the above facts.

3. Scope of liability for damages

(a) The deceased’s lost income;

The loss of lost income equivalent to the monetary total appraised value of the operating capacity lost by the accident of this case shall be calculated at the present price at the time of the accident of this case according to the Hofman-type Calculation Act, which deducts intermediary interest at the rate of 5/12 per month based on the following facts and the content of evaluation as follows:

(i)The facts of recognition and evaluation;

㈎ 성별 : 남자

Date of birth: April 26, 1997

Age: 15 years of age and 3 months (at the time of the accident)

Name of rental: 61.67

㈏ 거주지 및 소득실태

At the time of the accident, the deceased was residing in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which is an urban area, and the urban daily worker wage of adult male in August 2013, which is close to the date of the closing of argument in this case, is KRW 81,443 per day.

㈐ 가동기간 및 가동일수

In the absence of the instant accident, the Deceased was able to obtain an amount equivalent to urban daily workers’ wages until he/she reaches the age of 60, as the maximum working age, from April 26, 2019 to April 22, 2019, during which he/she had completed military service for two years of age.

㈑ 생계비 : 수입의 3분의 1

Sheshes calculation (less than a month and less than a won shall be discarded)

81,443 won ¡¿ 22 days ¡¿ 22 days ¡¿ 186.284 (25.2032 - 68.9188) = 225,516,219 won

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts in this court, entry of Gap evidence 1-5, Gap evidence 4 and 5, and purport of the whole pleadings

(b) Set-off of negligence;

Considering the percentage of the deceased’s fault 80%, property damage of the deceased is 45,103,243 won (=25,516,219 won).

(c) Compensation money;

The deceased died at the age that was not 16 years of age. At the time of the accident, the deceased first fell into the water, and the non-party 1, who was ice, went into the water, appears to have come out of the wind, and thus, it seems that the deceased might have come out of the wind. In light of the situation at the time when the deceased could have been able to do so, it may be deemed that the non-party 1 was tried to seek the accident in this case, and that the deceased was caused by the accident in this case. In addition, taking into account the various circumstances shown in the arguments in this case, it is reasonable to determine the consolation money of the deceased as 20 million won, the consolation money of the plaintiff 1 and 2, the parent, as 5 million won, and the consolation money of the plaintiff 3 and 4, the sibling, as 1 million won, as 1 million won

(d) Inheritance relations; and

As the lineal ascendant of the deceased, the Plaintiff 1 and 2 respectively inherited 32,51,621 won [the amount of claim of the deceased = KRW 65,103,243 of the deceased’s claim amount + KRW 45,103,243 of the deceased’s claim amount + KRW 20 million + KRW 1/2 of the deceased’s lost income + 1/2 of the deceased’s claim amount].

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at each rate of 37,51,621 won per annum from each of plaintiffs 1 and 2 (32,51,621 won per inheritance + 5 million won per 5 million won per annum from July 29, 2012, for which the Plaintiffs seek to resist about the existence and scope of the Defendants’ obligations after the date of the accident of this case, from July 29, 2012 to August 29, 2013, which is the date of the ruling of the first instance, and 5% per annum under the Civil Act until August 29, 2013, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ claims in this case are accepted within the above recognition scope as justifiable, and the remainder of the Plaintiffs’ claims are dismissed as it is without merit. Thus, the remaining portion of the judgment of the first instance is dismissed as the remainder of the appeal is justified.

Judge highest (Presiding Judge) and the President of the Republic of Korea