1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. The point where the Plaintiff alleged that the instant accident occurred is the quarter point of the expressway transit line and the entrance road, and at the same time, there was a room where the shock absorption facility was installed due to high risk of accidents, and there was a defect in the installation and management of the instant road at the site where the instant accident occurred due to the failure to install the shock absorption facility. Since the said defect contributed to the expansion of damages caused by the instant accident, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to 40% of the Defendant’s fault ratio out of the insurance money paid to the Plaintiff, and damages for delay.

3. Determination

(a) Defect in the construction or management of public structures in the relevant legal doctrine means a state in which the public structures do not have ordinary safety requirements in accordance with their intended use.

However, it cannot be said that there is a defect in the construction or management of a public structure merely because the public structure is not in a state of completeness and has any defect in its function. In light of the overall circumstances such as the purpose of use of the public structure and its current status and current status of use, it is necessary to determine whether the construction or 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.

(1) In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the construction and management of public structures, and by misapprehending the legal principles on the construction and management of public structures, and by exceeding the bounds of the legal principles on the construction and management of public structures, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the construction and management of public structures, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da23455 Decided November 9, 2006, etc.). B.

On February 2, 2013, the former Road Act.