1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The Plaintiff asserted that, around 14:10 on October 25, 2016, the Plaintiff got a bicycle and passed through a non-packaged road at C construction site at the Defendant’s public domain, and the Defendant’s public domain was pokele with the wheels, and the soil was cut off to the wind requiring a bicycle wheels. Accordingly, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as a conical signboard escape certificate, spine electric brates, and chrode fluor, etc., which require a 12-day medical treatment.

The defendant has been installed at the entrance of the flat construction site, but it was difficult for him to complete the construction work.

Accordingly, the plaintiff is not equipped with a blocking, but the plaintiff has a bicycle riding along with the above non-packaged road.

However, the defendant did not install a blocking at the entrance of the site although he was conducting the above temporary landscaping work, and the plaintiff believed that he did not perform the construction work, and was involved in the accident that the plaintiff loaded the bicycle on the above non-packaged road.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 758 of the Civil Act, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 10,342,090 for medical expenses, KRW 30,000 for consolation money, KRW 40,342,090 for consolation money, and damages for delay.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant removed existing roads on the C side of the public city through a natural disaster risk improvement zone improvement project, and performed a river embankment construction project to store embankments and install roads between C and riverine farmland.

B. The Defendant set up a blocking at the entire construction site to restrict the passage of neighboring residents. However, considering the fact that the said road was used as an access road to farmland in the vicinity C, the Defendant created a embankment and set up a road with soil and controlled access only when necessary.

Accordingly, when there is no access control of the defendant, neighboring residents could freely use the road.

The plaintiff was living in the vicinity of the construction site and was aware of the progress of the construction project, and the road in the form of soil path was often used.

C. The Plaintiff is from the end of October 2016 to the end of November 2016 to the first end of November 1, 2016, and C.14:10.