[1] A road management agency (=a delegated agency) where an agency is delegated to maintain and manage a road

[2] In the case of delegation by a local government head of a local government, the person liable for damages as a person responsible for tort due to delegation of delegated affairs (=the upper local government)

[1] If the administrative authority of a higher local government related to the maintenance and management of a road was delegated to the lower local government head under the Ordinance on the Delegation of Administrative Authority, it shall not be simple internal delegation of the delegated authority, but the lower local government head delegated with the authority shall be the road management authority, and the delegated authority

[2] In the case of delegation between the heads of local governments, since the head of a subordinate local government delegated with the duties of an administrative agency under the jurisdiction of a superior local government, it cannot be said that the subject of reversion of duties is different. Therefore, even if a public official belonging to a subordinate local government that assists the head of a subordinate local government intentionally or negligently inflicts damage on others in the course of performing delegated duties

[1] Article 95 of the Local Autonomy Act, Article 22 of the Road Act, Article 5 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Delegation of Administrative Authority / [2] Article 95 of the Local Autonomy Act, Article 2 and Article 6 of the State Compensation Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 91Da22148 delivered on November 12, 1991 (Gong1992, 98) Supreme Court Decision 91Nu11292 delivered on September 22, 1992 (Gong1992, 301) Supreme Court Decision 94Da57671 delivered on February 24, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 140) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 80Da2303 delivered on November 24, 1981 (Gong1982, 63) Supreme Court Decision 92Da2684 delivered on November 26, 193 (Gong193, 848) and Supreme Court Decision 92Da29719 delivered on September 11, 1994 (Gong1993, 1948).

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant (Attorney Park Sung-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 95Na36550 delivered on April 16, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

If the administrative authority of a higher local government with respect to the maintenance and management of roads was delegated to the lower local government head under the Ordinance on the Delegation of Administrative Authority, it is not a simple internal delegation of authority, and the lower local government head with authority delegated shall be the road management authority (see Supreme Court Decisions 91Da22148, Nov. 12, 1991; 94Da57671, Feb. 24, 1995; 94Da57671, Feb. 24, 1995; 91Nu1292, Sept. 22, 1992). However, in such cases, the lower local government head with authority delegated shall not be deemed to be the one with authority to assume the responsibility for damages of the upper local government even if a public official belonging to the lower local government who assists the head of the local government causes damage to another person by intention or negligence in performing delegated affairs (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu11292, Sept. 26, 1992).

The court below recognized the fact that the head of Yongsan-gu Office is responsible for the maintenance and management of roads in the position of the administrative agency under the jurisdiction of the plaintiff as to the roads of the branch office of this case pursuant to Article 5 of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on the Delegation of Administrative Authority, and that the head of Yongsan-gu Office maintains and manages the roads as to the roads of this case. The judgment of the court below that the market price of the plaintiff is liable for the damages of this case due to erroneous management by public officials belonging to Yongsan-gu, who assist the head of Yongsan-gu as the main agent in charge of the maintenance and management of the roads of this case. The judgment of the court below is just, and the Supreme Court Decision 91Nu1292 delivered on September 22, 1992 cited in the ground of appeal is just that the legal principles as to the cases where the delegation of authority was made, and if so, it does not change the main agent in charge of the affairs.

2. On the second and third grounds for appeal

Upon examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below acknowledged facts as stated in its judgment after compiling the evidence adopted in its judgment, and judged that there exists a causal relationship between the accident of this case and the plaintiff's negligence and the plaintiff's negligence and the ratio of the plaintiff's negligence to 6:4 degree is acceptable. There is no violation of the rules of evidence, misunderstanding the legal principles on causal relationship and negligence, misunderstanding the legal principles on causation and negligence, misunderstanding of the reasoning, misunderstanding of the reasoning, and misunderstanding of the reasoning, and there is no obvious unreasonable ground for appeal as to the negligence ratio.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff-Appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)