[1] Where the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, etc. becomes the managing authority of the general national highway under Article 22 (2) of the Road Act, the person to whom the liability for damages due to the management defects and the grounds for such liability

[2] The validity of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Delegation of Administrative Authority re-entrusted to the head of the Gu for the maintenance and management of the general national highway (negative)

[3] The relationship between the liability for damages under Article 2 or 5 of the State Compensation Act and the liability of the person bearing the expenses under Article 6 of the same Act

[4] In a case where one of the joint tortfeasors has filed a lawsuit against the victim and jointly exempted, whether the attorney's expenses paid for the response are included in the scope of the right to indemnity (affirmative with qualification)

[5] The relationship between the joint tortfeasor and the joint tortfeasor's liability for damages

[1] In light of the fact that national highways are designated as national highways in order to comprehensively manage the traffic networks of the entire nation, and it is not desirable for each local government to manage them by each different method, and that Article 11 subparagraph 4 of the Local Autonomy Act provides national highways with the provision of national businesses and stipulates national highways as examples, if the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, etc. becomes the managing agency of national highways under Article 22 (2) of the Road Act, it shall be deemed that the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, etc., who is the head of local government, is delegated by the state to manage the national highways and administers the affairs in the position of its subordinate administrative agency. Thus, the State shall be liable for damages due to the management defects of the national highways, and the local government to which the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, etc. belongs shall be liable as a liable person under Article 6 (1) of the State Compensation Act

[2] Since the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, etc.'s duties of maintaining and managing general national roads are the state affairs delegated to the head of a local government, they cannot be re-entrusted to the head of a local government, etc. under the Municipal Ordinance of a local government, and the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, etc. cannot be re-entrusted to the head of a local government pursuant to Article 5 (1) of the Government Organization Act and Article 4 of the Regulations on Delegation and Entrustment of Administrative Authority, it can be re-entrusted to the head of a local government pursuant to the regulations enacted by the head of a local government after obtaining approval from the delegated agency under Article 4 of the

[3] The liability of the person bearing the expenses under Article 6 (1) of the State Compensation Act is based on Article 2 or 5 of the State Compensation Act where the State or local government is liable for damages under Article 2 or 5 of the State Compensation Act, and where the person who is responsible for the appointment and supervision of public officials or the construction and management of public structures and the person who is responsible for the expenses incurred by the person who is responsible for the damages in his/her own name is found to be liable for damages from the perspective of protecting victims so that it is difficult for him/her to clearly understand the subject of the liability,

[4] Unless there are special circumstances, such as that the cost of attorney-at-law paid by one of the joint tortfeasors in response to a lawsuit filed by the victim was unfair, the expenses that cannot be avoided for joint immunity and other damages that are included in the scope of the right to indemnity against the other joint tortfeasor.

[5] In a case where several joint tortfeasors inflict damages on another person as a joint tortfeasor, the joint tortfeasor shall be liable for all of them independently in relation to the victim, but in their internal relations, the ratio of liability is in accordance with the ratio of negligence contributed to the tort, unless there are special circumstances. Therefore, the relationship of liability between joint tortfeasors is reasonable to determine the liability as a divided liability according to the ratio of negligence of each joint tortfeasors.

[1] Articles 2(1), 5(1), and 6(1) of the State Compensation Act; Articles 2(2), 56(2), and 56 of the Road Act / [2] Article 5(1) of the Government Organization Act; Article 4 of the Regulations on Delegation and Entrustment of Administrative Authority; / [3] Articles 2(1), 5(1), 6(1), and 6(1)/ [4] Articles 425, 760, 760, / [5] Articles 408, 425, and 760 of the Civil Act

[1]

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[2] Supreme Court Decision 92Da31 delivered on July 28, 1992 (Gong1992, 2575)

Supreme Court en banc Decision 94Nu4615 delivered on July 11, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2633)

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Jeon-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gong1996Sang, 66 others, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 et al. (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[4] Supreme Court Decision 94Da48257 delivered on October 12, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3726)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 et al. (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[5] Supreme Court Decision 88Meu27232 Decided September 26, 1989 (Gong1989, 1559)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

National Freight Trucking Association (Attorney Choi-ju, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul Special Metropolitan City 2 others (Law Firm Dae-gu General Law Office, Attorneys Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 97Na2009 delivered on August 22, 1997

1. The defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and the defendant Republic of Korea shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 71,550,000 per annum from January 10, 1996 to April 17, 1997, and the amount of 25% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's claim against Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and the remaining claims against the defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government and the defendant in Korea are all dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and the Defendant Republic of Korea shall be four minutes, which shall be borne by the said Defendants, the remainder by the Plaintiff, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City shall be borne by

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 159,00,000 and the amount at each rate of KRW 5% per annum from January 10, 1996 to the date of this judgment, and 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

1. Determination on Defendant Republic of Korea’s main defense

The above defendant's claim for indemnity of this case was unlawful since it did not go through a decision of compensation council as stipulated under Article 9 of the State Compensation Act, and therefore, the above defendant's defense of safety is unlawful. Thus, the decision procedure of the compensation council asserted by the above defendant should go through a case where the victim of tort files a claim for damages against the State or local government. It is not a procedure to go through a lawsuit where the plaintiff subrogated a person who committed a tort jointly with the State or local government in a lawsuit claiming compensation for damages caused by joint tort against the State or local government. Thus, the above defendant's defense of safety is without merit

2. Judgment on the merits

(a) recognised facts;

The following facts may be acknowledged if there is no dispute between the parties, or if Gap's evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 6, Eul's evidence of subparagraph 7-4 through 13, 15, 16, 21, 27, 28, 32, 35 through 40, 43 through 45, 47, 48, 56, 57 through 68, 71, 75, 76, 78, 79, 82 through 84, Eul's evidence of subparagraph 1 through 4, Eul's evidence of subparagraph 5-1, 2, and 6, Eul's evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 5, and Eul's evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 5, and the whole purport of oral pleadings are visible.

(1) On October 30, 1990, the paper rock of 30 meters wide from the paper rock ginseng located in Dongdaemun-gu in Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu to the U. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S.s.s.s.s. on June 14, 1971. S.s. S.S. S.s. S.s. S.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s. c.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.

(2) At the first time, the instant 4th height limit of the height of the vehicle passing through the 4.5m above the 4th intersection was installed in both sides of the 4th intersection. However, at the time of the accident that the Defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government’s implementation of the construction project, etc. over the road passing through the 4th intersection (hereinafter referred to as the “accident”), the height of the 4th parallel to the 4th parallel was lower than 4.5m, unlike the above 4th limit mark, the above 4th height limit sign was left alone without correcting the 4th height limit mark (the instant 4th parallel was collapseed after the instant accident, and the 4th height of the 4th parallel, which is the public official of the Republic of Korea, did not seem to have been measured at the time of the instant accident. However, considering the height of the vehicle itself and the height of the 4th parallel, it appears that the 4th parallel height of the instant 4th parallel to the entire 4th height of the instant accident.

(3) Under Article 5 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Delegation of Administrative Authority (Ordinance No. 2523, Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Delegation of Administrative Authority; hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance on the Delegation of Administrative Authority"), Defendant Seoul delegated the maintenance and management of the instant landing school to the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as the "head of Seongbuk-gu Office") who is the head of the Gu in charge of the instant accident, pursuant to the "Regulation on the Safety Control of Public Facilities" (Ordinance No. 759, Feb. 10, 1993; hereinafter the "Regulation on the Safety Control of Public Facilities"), the head of Seongbuk-gu Office instructed the head of Seongbuk-gu Office to investigate and report the height of the restriction on the passage of the road facilities on August 13, 1994, the head of Seongbuk-gu Office considered that the actual height of the instant landing school at the time of the request of the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City on the 30th of the same month was lower than the height of the road at 94 meters.

(4) On the other hand, among the road facility management cards managed by the head of Seongbuk-gu Office at the time, the passage height of the instant road was 4.2m, and the new card was 4.4m.

(5) On November 19, 1994, Nonparty 2, a driver of the non-party 1 corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party 1 corporation") connects the non-party company's (vehicle number omitted) Track Industrial Co., Ltd. with the length of 12.4m, the height of loading 1.46m, (vehicle number omitted) 1.46m in height, and entered Seoul by driving the Track Industrial Co., Ltd., the non-party 2, a driver of the non-party 1 corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party 1 corporation"), with one structure of each iron structure, which is a material for constructing the urban Highway at a height of 10.3m, the weight of 28.5m, and 3.04m high, which is a material for constructing the urban Highway, and loaded it in diameter, and entered Seoul through the lac road.

(6) At around 09:50 the following day, Nonparty 2 driven the instant box and proceeded at least 40 km each hour along the second line of the instant road from the jurisdiction of the Korea University from the Yari-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-si (hereinafter referred to as the “Nonindicted Party 2”) with the height on the upper limit of height at the center of the north side of the instant road at approximately 20 meters.

(7) As the above non-party 2, when the total height of the above bitr (including loaded goods and chains combining them) goes through the bottom of the above bitr 4.53 meters, the above bitr's loaded goods loaded on the above bitr was at the risk of collision with the lower part of the upper part of the above bitr's surface by digging up of the road or the vibration of vehicles, etc., and it was confirmed closely whether there is a danger of collision with the above bitr's speed reduction and the danger of collision, even if the operation is suspended or operated in accordance with the result, it was examined whether the above biter's loaded goods in the above bitr's upper part of the above biter's surface by failing to comply with the duty of care to safely proceed with the above bitr's upper part of the above bitr's surface while driving at the same speed, and the above 3 biter's upper part of the biter's upper part of the above biter's stal.

(8) The above non-party 5, 6, and 7, who are parents of the non-party 4, filed a lawsuit claiming damages against the non-party company and the defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government on December 5, 1995 against the non-party company and the defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the non-party 5 and the non-party 7,236,560 won with the non-party 5 jointly and severally, and the non-party 77,236,560 won with the non-party 5% per annum from February 21, 1995 to December 5, 1995, and the non-party 5% per annum from the next day to December 5, 1995 to the non-party company. The above judgment on the non-party company became final and conclusive around that time.

(9) The plaintiff is a mutual aid association that provides mutual aid services under Article 8 of the Land Transport Promotion Act. On January 9, 1996, the plaintiff was a mutual aid company that entered into a mutual aid agreement with the non-party company with respect to the fleet, and paid 157,400,000 won out of the above judgment amount to the attorney Kim Sung-sung, a legal representative of the non-party 5, etc., on behalf of the non-party 157,400,000 won, and exempted the remainder of the principal and the damages for delay until the above judgment amount. The plaintiff paid 1,60,000 won to the current attorney-at-law who represented the non-party company in the lawsuit in the above lawsuit, with the litigation cost of January 5, 1996. The plaintiff's damages compensation and expenses incurred by the plaintiff were 159,00,000 won

B. Occurrence of liability for indemnity

(1) Acquisition of the Plaintiff’s right to indemnity

According to the above facts, the accident of this case was caused by the negligence of the above non-party 2 on duty and the negligence of neglecting the traffic restriction mark as 4.5 meters away from the road, and the plaintiff who paid damages to the victim of the accident of this case and exempted the joint tortfeasor by paying damages to the victim of the accident of this case in accordance with the legal principles of the insurer's subrogation, the plaintiff acquired the right to claim compensation in proportion to the liability of the other joint tortfeasor in accordance with the liability ratio against the other joint tortfeasor, in accordance with the insurer's subrogation, even though the vehicle in this case was obligated to prevent the accident of this case by measuring the correct height of the land and displaying the height of the restriction on the passage of the road without the obstacle of the vehicle.

(2) Grounds for Defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government and Korea’s responsibility

Article 1-3 (8) of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Act provides that the above land of this case constitutes a road accessory to the Road Act (amended by Act No. 4796 of Dec. 22, 1994; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 3 (2) of the Road Act provides that the road management agency shall apply mutatis mutandis to the road accessory facilities. Meanwhile, under Article 22 of the Road Act, the road management agency shall be the Minister of Construction and Transportation for national highways and the administrative agency which recognized the route for other roads. However, notwithstanding the above, the upper-tier road (excluding national expressways) within the Seoul Metropolitan City or Si jurisdiction shall be the management agency. Since the road of this case is constructed within the jurisdiction of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, as seen earlier, the road management agency of this case shall be the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, the Metropolitan City Mayor, or the City Mayor. Thus, since the road of this case is established within the national road under the jurisdiction of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the management agency of the State road of this case shall be the head of the local government.

(3) Determination on the liability of the Defendant Seongbuk-gu

(A) First of all, the plaintiff asserts that the Seongbuk-gu head of Seongbuk-gu is entrusted with the management authority to maintain and manage the instant landing school pursuant to the above Public Facility Safety Management Regulations and the Ordinance on the Delegation of Administrative Authority, so the defendant Seongbuk-gu is a local government belonging to the above head of Seongbuk-gu and was in the position of a person to bear the cost under Article 56 of the Road Act, and therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damages caused by the instant accident as

On the other hand, the Public Facilities Safety Management Regulations are merely a internal regulation that provides matters on their own for the safety management of public facilities granted to the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government under the Road Act, and they do not have any external effect that can revert to the head of Seongbuk-gu. Since the maintenance and management duties of this case in the Mayor of Seoul Metropolitan Government are managed in the status of the administrative agency under its jurisdiction, which is part of the maintenance duties of the national highway of the defendant Republic of Korea, which is the state affairs in the nature of the management duties, and they correspond to the so-called agency delegation duties, the head of Seoul Metropolitan Government is not allowed to re-entrust them to the head of the Gu, etc. under the Municipal Ordinance of the local government, and it is possible only to re-endorse them under the conditions as prescribed by the regulations enacted by the head of the local government after obtaining the approval of the delegated agency under Article 5 (1) of the Government Organization Act, Article 4 of the Regulations on Delegation and Entrustment of Administrative Authority. Accordingly, as seen earlier, the part re-entrusted to the head of the Gu under the Ordinance on

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking liability against the defendant Seongbuk-gu as the cost-sharing of the management expenses of the school in this case is groundless on the premise that the re-election on the maintenance and management of the school in this case is lawful.

(B) The plaintiff again filed a false report with the head of Seongbuk-gu Office on August 30, 194, when he received an order from the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to investigate and report the height of passage restrictions on the road facilities prior to the occurrence of the accident although the height of the road of this case was lower than the indication on the road of this case, the public official in charge of the management of the road of this case belonging to Seongbuk-gu is not responsible for damages caused by the intention or negligence of the public official belonging to Seongbuk-gu Office because it is difficult for the head of Seongbuk-gu Office to manage the road of this case as a public official in charge of the management of the road of this case to bear the responsibility of the public official in charge of the management of the road of this case as the owner of the road of this case under the condition that it is difficult for the public official in charge of the management of the road of this case to take the responsibility of the public official in charge of the management of the road of this case as the owner of the road of this case to maintain the above public health delegated by the Ordinance of the State Compensation Act.

C. Scope of the right of indemnity;

Insurance money paid by the Plaintiff to the above non-party 5, etc. is paid in accordance with the above judgment of damages, and is equivalent to the amount within the actual damages suffered by the above non-party 5, etc. on the other hand, barring special circumstances, such as that the attorney's expenses incurred by one of the joint tortfeasor in response to the lawsuit filed by the victim were unfair, and is included in the scope of the above right of indemnity. Thus, the above attorney's fees paid by the non-party company in the course of the lawsuit claiming damages with the above non-party 5, etc. are reasonable in light of the criteria for remuneration under the Rules on the Calculation of Litigation Costs of the above case, difficulty of the case, and the result of judgment

In addition, in case where there are false persons causing damage to others as a joint tort, the joint illegal actors are fully responsible for each person's own responsibility in relation to the victim's relationship, but the ratio of liability in their internal relationship is in accordance with the ratio of negligence that has contributed to the tort unless there are special circumstances. Considering all the circumstances such as the situation of the accident in this case, the situation of the accident in question and the road situation in which the accident occurred, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff, the defendant, the defendant, and the Seoul Metropolitan Government's negligence ratio is 10

Therefore, the defendant Republic of Korea and the defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government are liable to pay each of the above defendants' damages amounting to KRW 71,550,000 ($159,00,000 x 45/100) out of the above amount of KRW 159,00,000 paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff (the plaintiff is jointly and severally entitled to the above compensation amount against the defendants, but the right to claim compensation for damages is recognized as a divided liability according to the principle that each of the above defendants' negligence ratio is fairly shared by each joint tortfeasor's negligence ratio).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, Defendant Republic of Korea and Defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government are obligated to pay to the Plaintiff each of the above amounts of KRW 71,550,000 and each of the above amounts of KRW 71,50,000 per annum from January 10, 1996 to April 17, 1997, which is the date following the final payment date of the above amounts, and to pay damages for delay at the rate of KRW 25,00 per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is justified within the above recognition scope, and all of the Plaintiff’s remaining claims against the above Defendants and the Defendant’s claims against the above Defendants are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Tae-hun (Presiding Judge)