All appeals filed by the Plaintiff and Defendant Jeollabuk-do are dismissed.

Of the costs of appeal, the Plaintiff and Defendant Jeollabuk-do.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. According to Plaintiff 1’s ground of appeal No. 1 and Defendant 1’s ground of appeal No. 1, the former River Act (amended by Act No. 9605 of Apr. 1, 2009; hereinafter the same) as to the Ministry of Construction and Transportation’s national river management (Article 8(1)), and the Mayor/Do Governor’s implementation of the maintenance and repair of national river (proviso of Article 27(5)), the relevant City/Do shall bear the expenses (proviso of Article 59), and the Minister of Construction and Transportation may subsidize part of the expenses to City/Do.

(Article 64). Where the maintenance and repair work of national rivers is delegated to the head of a local government, the head of a local government is in charge of such work in the position of a state agency, so the State shall compensate for damages caused by defects in the management of national rivers as the person to whom the construction and management work of public structures belongs pursuant to Article 5(1)

If the State has paid part of the expenses for the maintenance and repair of national rivers to the City/Do concerned, the State and the City/Do concerned are liable to compensate for damages as a person who bears the expenses for the construction and management of public structures referred to in Article 6 (1) of the State Compensation Act.

As such, where the State is a person to whom the affairs belong and a person to whom the relevant City/Do bears expenses under the proviso to Article 59 of the former River Act, and the relevant City/Do is liable to compensate for the ultimately damages under Article 6 (2) of the State Compensation Act, if the relevant City/Do overlaps with its responsibility as a person to bear expenses under the proviso to Article

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da42819 delivered on July 10, 1998, etc.). On May 12, 2008, the lower court held that this case’s case’s case’s case’s death occurred during the network A’s death.