(a) The case holding that there is a defect in the construction and management of a public structure under Article 5 of the State Compensation Act;

(c) Where the State or a local government inflicts damage on others due to defects in the construction and management of public structures, whether the State or the local government is able to claim immunity on the grounds that it failed to exercise due care to prevent such damage;

D. Whether the damage caused by other natural facts or by competition with the act of a third party or a victim is deemed to have been caused by the defect in the construction and management of a public structure

A. Defects in the construction and management of the public structure under Article 5 of the State Compensation Act refer to defects in the construction and management of the public structure, which are incomplete in the construction and management of the public structure.

(b) The case holding that there is a defect in the installation and management of a road as a defect in the safety of the road, in the event that the water filled out due to a cre in the water supply pipes laid underground under the control of the local government flows out to the road above the road, and the surface crepits the road.

C. The liability for defects in the construction and management of public structures under Article 5 of the State Compensation Act is strict liability, and the liability for the possessor of a structure under Article 758 of the Civil Act is not stipulated otherwise. Thus, the State or a local government may not claim exemption on the ground that it did not neglect to pay due attention for the prevention of damages in cases where the damage was inflicted on another person due to defects in the construction and management of public structures.

D. An accident caused by a defect in the construction or management of a public structure does not mean only a defect in the construction or management of a public structure causes damage, but it is reasonable to interpret that the damage was caused by a defect in the construction or management of a public structure, as long as the defect in the construction or management of a public structure causes damage, even if another natural event or a third party's act or an act of the injured party in combination with the injured party's act.

(c)Article 5(c) of the State Compensation Act; Article 758 of the Civil Code;

A. Supreme Court Decision 66Da1723 delivered on Feb. 21, 1967 (No. 15Nu120), and Supreme Court Decision 92Da21050 delivered on Oct. 27, 1992 (Gong1992, 3273) (Gong1992, 3273). Supreme Court Decision 63Da385 delivered on Sept. 26, 1963 (No. 11 ② 160) and 76Da2608 delivered on Jul. 12, 197

Plaintiff 1 and four others

Pursuant to Article 14

Gwangju High Court Decision 93Na8565 delivered on June 1, 1994

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

The court below acknowledged the following facts: (a) there was a rupture in the water pipes laid underground of the roads as indicated in the holding based on the evidences of macroscopic evidence; (b) there was a rupture of water coming out due to the outflow of the road surface to the low surface; (c) the fact that the surface in which the deceased non-party 1 operated a cab was removed from the above points; (d) there was a collision with the cargo vehicles going beyond the central line, and died; (e) the defendant installed and managed the above water supply system; and (g) the defendant was responsible for damages caused by the defects in the construction and management of the above roads and the installation and management of the above water supply pipes; and (e) the defendant's defense that there was no negligence in the installation and management of the water supply pipes of this case; and (e) the above water supply system was hard to recognize that the above accident occurred due to the defects in the construction and management of the water supply system of this case to the 19.23.7.23.

The defects in the construction and management of the public structure under Article 5 of the State Compensation Act are incomplete in the construction and management of the public structure, and therefore, they refer to the state in which the public structure itself does not have safety requirements (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 66Da1723, Feb. 21, 1967; Supreme Court Decision 92Da21050, Oct. 27, 1992). As recognized by the court below, if there is a rupture in the water supply pipes laid underground and underground, and the water coming from the rupture has flown to the road, and the road has a defect in construction and management as a defect in the safety of the road.

In addition, in light of the above facts, the accident in this case cannot be deemed to be caused by force majeure, and the liability for the defect in the construction and management of the public structure under Article 5 of the State Compensation Act is strict liability, and further, the liability of the possessor of the structure under Article 758 of the Civil Act does not stipulate any reason for exemption unlike the liability of the possessor of the structure under Article 758 of the Civil Act. Therefore, the State or local government cannot claim exemption on the ground that it did not neglect due care necessary for the prevention of the damage in the event that

Therefore, it is rather inappropriate for the court below to consider and decide the defendant's assertion that there was no negligence in the installation and management of the water supply center of this case as a defense on the grounds of exemption from liability, but it does not affect the conclusion that the accident of this case was not caused by force majeure, and therefore there is no fault on the defendant, and there is no ground of appeal that the exemption from liability should be recognized.

On the second ground for appeal

An accident due to a defect in the construction or management of a public structure is not limited to cases where only the defect in the construction or management of a public structure causes the damage, but it is reasonable to interpret that the defect in the construction or management of a public structure causes the damage as long as the defect in the construction or management of a public structure becomes one of the common causes even if other natural facts or acts of a third party or acts of a victim. (See Supreme Court Decision 76Da2608 delivered on July 12, 197, 197). In light of the records, the court below's decision to the same effect is just, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of the lawsuit, or in the incomplete hearing, as it is obvious that the ice caused the accident of this case due to the process such as the time of the original adjudication was the cause of the accident of this case.

There is no reason for this issue.

On the third ground for appeal

According to the facts duly admitted by the court below, it seems reasonable to recognize the deceased's negligence to the extent of 30%, and there is no reason to criticize it from the opposite position.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)