[1] The meaning of and criteria for determining the "defect in the construction or management of public structures" under Article 5 (1) of the State Compensation Act

[2] The case holding that in a case where Party A was negligent in driving a vehicle while under drinking and Party B died of B as the chief of the vehicle steering room, it cannot be deemed that there was any defect in the construction and management of the road at the point of accident solely on the ground that the vehicle driving facility was taken at the time when the vehicle driving facility was installed on the road at the point of accident

[1] Article 5 (1) of the State Compensation Act / [2] Article 5 (1) of the State Compensation Act, Article 38 (1) of the Rules on the Standards for Structure and Facilities of Roads

[1] Supreme Court Decision 99Da54004 delivered on February 25, 2000 (Gong2000Sang, 830)

[Defendant-Appellee] Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Hun-Ba, Attorneys Lee Young-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Siljin-si (Law Firm Han River, Attorneys Kang Han-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Na34081 Decided December 12, 2013

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The defect in the construction or management of a public structure under Article 5(1) of the State Compensation Act refers to a state in which the public structure is in a state of failing to have safety ordinarily required for its use. Thus, it cannot be said that there is any defect in the construction or management of the public structure merely because the public structure is not in a state of completeness and has any defect in its function. In determining whether the safety is satisfied, it is reasonable to determine whether the construction manager has fulfilled the duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the danger of the public structure by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as the use of the public structure in question, the current state of the construction site, and the situation of its use. In a case where, objectively and objectively, there is no possibility and possibility of predictability of damage due to the defect in the function of the public structure, in other words, the defect in the construction or management of the public structure is not acknowledged in a situation under which the construction manager of the public structure cannot exercise its management (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da5404, Feb. 25, 2000).

2. A. In this case, the plaintiff, the insured, caused the accident that caused the accident that caused the death of the non-party 2, as in the chief of the vehicle, caused by the accident that caused the steel fences installed on the road, while the non-party 1, who driven the vehicle under the influence of alcohol level 0.137%. Since the accident site of this case is a section where the road of the downhill road is fast to the left side, especially a section where there is a high risk of accident at night, the defendant who manages the road of this case is obligated to install and manage the starting-line guidance facilities, etc. as stipulated in Article 38(1) of the Rules on the Standards for Road Structures and Facilities to prevent traffic accidents. Since it was erroneous for the defendant to neglect the construction and management of the road structure, such as the moving-type guidance facilities installed on the road of this case at the time of the accident at issue, the defendant asserts that the amount equivalent to the ratio of the defendant's liability out of the insurance proceeds paid by the plaintiff is liable to pay to the plaintiff.

B. Based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s claim on the following grounds: (a) the instant accident occurred only due to the driver’s failure or negligence in the operation of the vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, and (b) the Defendant, the road management authority of the instant accident site, who neglected the duty of care to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the danger of the public structure; and (c) it is difficult to deem

① Although the accident time of this case is at night, street lamps were installed on both sides of the road, so the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle seems to have no big difficulty in securing the view. The weather at the time of the accident was clear and dried on the surface.

② A light light is installed in front of the steel fence of the instant accident site. Before reaching the site of the instant accident, there was a sign of “road bending along the west.”

③ At regular intervals up to the site of the instant accident, a telegraph pole was installed. On the lower part of the owner of the telegraph, verification colors and yellow brooms had been affixed.

④ Considering the plucker, plucker, road breadth, and the Defendant’s financial, human, and physical constraints, etc., it is difficult to view that the instant accident location is necessarily necessary to point out the instant road along the instant accident location. Thus, the Defendant’s negligence cannot be recognized solely on the ground that the instant on-and-off, etc. was taken out at the time of the instant accident.

C. Reviewing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below revealed the following circumstances: (a) prior to the arrival of the accident site, the road at a bend road in the direction of the vehicle driving in the direction of the accident site was installed with the "ronding road sign" and the "ronding sign", and (b) the road in the direction of the accident vehicle was installed with the "ronding road sign" and the "ronding sign", and (c) the road in the direction of the accident vehicle is in a white stop line on the floor immediately before the point where the accident occurred; and (d) the light light is installed in front of the steel fence in the front of the accident site; and (e) the light light is installed near the road at a 10-meter radius from the border; and (e) the light light and the light were installed with the road at the direction of the accident vehicle driving; and (e) there were no errors in the construction of the road at the time of the accident site in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, there were no errors in the construction of the road at issue.

3. Therefore, the appeal is 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.

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)