1. Defendant Daegu Metropolitan City Dong-gu shall provide Plaintiff A with KRW 75,34,147, and KRW 1,000,000 for each of the Plaintiff B and C, and KRW 500 for Plaintiff D.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition 1) On September 20, 2013, Plaintiff A, along with Plaintiff D, was installed below the steel basin of Daegu-dong-ro 152, Daegu-ro, Daegu-ro, Daegu-ro (hereinafter “the instant accident site”), around 20:0, 2013.

(i)In the middle part of the digging bridge, at the right side of the course of the sloped from the breadth of the sloped from the border to the breadth of the sloped area (the sewage hole covered by the 1m width covered by the breadth), there is no sufficient lids in the last part of the bridge, 1.5m width, 1m length, 1m depth, 1m depth, open for entry or exit of the path, pathm wave of the path in which the breath has been affected, path of the path, path of the path of the pathy, path of the path part where the breath has been affected by flood control (hereinafter referred to as “accident in this case”).

(2) The place where the instant accident occurred is one-lane, and there is no separate delivery. As such, the Plaintiff A walked on a sewerage system with a width of 1m installed at the edge of the lane and was faced with the instant accident. The most of the sewerage was covered by a lid, but there was no significant lid in the instant accident site.

3) In addition, street lamps were not installed at the accident site of this case. At the time of the accident of this case, sewage culvert rearrangement work was performed at this point. 4) Plaintiffs B and C are the parents of Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff D is the births of Plaintiff A.

[Basis] Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, and 4-1 through 5, evidence Nos. 9, evidence Nos. 10-1, 2, evidence Nos. 10-2, and evidence Nos. 11-1, 2, Eul-1, 1, 2-1, 2-1, 2, and 3-1, 2-2, and 3-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Whether the Defendants are liable 1) Defendant Daegu Metropolitan City Dong-gu (hereinafter “Defendant Dong-gu”) is limited to “Defendant Dong-gu”

(A) In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence 10-1, 2, 14-1, 2 of Gap evidence 10-1, 14-2, the point where the accident of this case was registered as owned by the Republic of Korea, and the defendant Dong-gu is the river and the Gu.