(a) Standards for determining defects in the construction and preservation of roads, and the circumstances to be considered in order to recognize defects in the preservation of roads where a traffic safety, which is the original purpose thereof, has been caused by acts of a third party after construction of roads

(b) The case reversing the judgment of the court below which recognized the liability for damages of the above construction without falling short of it, even though the Korea Highway Corporation should have examined when the accident occurred beyond the central separation stand, when the accident occurred, and whether it did not take an accident prevention measure even though it knew of the safety defect on the expressway, etc., which is caused by the other difference of the front wheels of the truck on the expressway;

A. Construction and preservation defects of a road, which are structures, shall be determined in detail in accordance with social norms by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as the location of the road, road structure, traffic volume, traffic conditions in the event of an accident, etc., road usage conditions of the road and the location, shape, etc. of physical defects, which are the original purpose of the road after construction of the road, and the location and form of the main purpose of the road. In the event a traffic safety defect, which is the original purpose of the road, has occurred due to an act of a third party after construction of the road, the preservation defects of the road shall not be recognized just because of such defects, and even if such defects can be restored to the original state by taking into account all all the circumstances, such as the structure, location,

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below that recognized the liability for damages of the above construction works without any further deliberation on all the circumstances, such as the following: (a) it was not sufficient to recognize the liability for damages caused by the defect in the traffic of vehicles running on high speed due to the difference of the road from the road to the Korea Highway in order to recognize the liability for damages caused by the defect in the maintenance of the road; and (b) it was not sufficient to determine the existence of the defect of the above construction works without any further deliberation on all the circumstances, such as the patrol, etc. on the safety of the expressway of the above construction; (c) the time when the above construction was reported or directly discovered the defect in the safety of other vessels; and (d) whether it was neglected without any accident prevention measures, or whether it was not discovered even if it was possible to discover the defect in the expressway; and (e) whether it was found.

Article 758(1) of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and four plaintiffs, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Korea Highway Corporation (Attorney Yoon Il-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 91Na6702 delivered on December 5, 1991

The part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

Defendant 1’s ground of appeal

The court below, based on evidence, found that the defendant, as the maintenance and management personnel of the above expressway, should remove the obstacles as soon as possible on the expressway, and caused the death of the non-party 1 at the point 0: 0: 2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000: 0: 1:0:0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000: 1:0:0:0,000:0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000: 1:0:0,000,000:0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,000:1:0:0,00,00.

The defects in the construction and preservation of a road, which are structures, shall be determined in detail in accordance with social norms by comprehensively taking into account the location of the road, such as location of the road, structure of the road, traffic volume, conditions of the road including traffic conditions in the event of an accident, overall circumstances such as the original purpose of use of the road, location and shape of the material defect, etc.

In this case, in order to recognize the defendant's liability for damages caused by a defect in the preservation of a road, it is not sufficient to say that there is a safe defect in the passage of a vehicle driving ahead of the road due to a defect in the maintenance of the road. It is not sufficient to recognize the responsibility only where the defendant, the manager, can take protective measures to detect and remove the safety defect in the road caused by the act of a third party, such as another vehicle prior to the occurrence of the accident, and to restore it to the safe traffic condition of the vehicle, but fails to take such measures. In other words, if the safety defect in the road is objectively and objectively considered from the safety defect in the road, and in the situation where the defendant's management cannot be carried out

According to the records, the accident of this case is that the front wheels of the truck drivened by the deceased non-party 1 was generated over the median line of 176.5 kilometers on the expressway, and the defendant's road management regulations (Evidence B) and the safety management regulations (Evidence B) are prescribed to check whether there are any obstacles to the expressway and any other facilities at the time of the accident. When the defendant finds any major accident during the patrol, it shall be reported to the head of the office after taking necessary traffic and emergency measures, and the special traffic volume shall not be strengthened at the time of the accident, even if the accident occurred at the point of 0: 1:0,000,000,000,000,000: 2:0,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,00,00,00,00.

In the above factual relations, it is thought that it is difficult for the Defendant to take measures to prevent accidents by discovering, removing, and taking measures to prevent accidents on the road away from the location of the instant accident. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the lower court’s decision that recognized the Defendant’s liability for damages. Ultimately, the lower court should have deliberated on all the circumstances, including: (a) whether the Defendant was neglected to take measures to prevent accidents even if he was aware of the safety defects on the expressway due to the Defendant’s failure to take measures to prevent accidents; and (b) whether the Defendant was unable to discover, even if he was aware of the safety defects on the expressway due to the Defendant’s failure to take such measures.

The judgment of the court below shall not be erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to defects in the construction and preservation of roads, nor in the incomplete hearing.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench, without further proceeding to decide on the other grounds of appeal, and the case is reversed and remanded to the court below.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice) Park Young-dong Kim Jong-ho