beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance 2 9, 12, 14, 20, and 3rd of the judgment of the court of first instance 2 9, 12, 14, 20 , and 3 , 'the last lid', 'the third b.
The judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following modifications, and thus, it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. "Defects in the construction and management of a public structure" under Article 5 (1) of the State Compensation Act refers to the state where a public structure built for public purposes fails to have ordinary safety requirements according to its intended purpose. In the construction and management of a public structure, it cannot be readily concluded that there is a defect in the construction or management of a public structure on the ground that it does not have high level of safety to the extent that it always maintains perfect state of integrity. The duty to take protective measures imposed on the installer or manager of the public structure is to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the danger of the public structure.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da9158 delivered on August 23, 2002, etc.). Based on the above legal principle, each of the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the purport of the statement and the entire pleadings in the health class, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including the number of pages) with respect to the instant case, i.e., the Mangle of this case is in the form of Magle-type, one of which is in the form of Magle-type, 3 cm compared to the neighboring delivery, and is likely to make a short of 3 cm that comes from the opposite direction with the large line, so it cannot be readily concluded that the above level of the difference was installed in India, and that there was a situation where the safety was not equipped according to its use. ② The plaintiffs asserted that the part that was made by the mother of the part that was made by guing.