205 Ba6692 Damage, Claim

Park*

the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea

Attorney***

Won-si

Representative Market***

Attorney***

November 8, 2006

December 27, 2006

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 50,014,227 won with 5% interest per annum from June 12, 2005 to the delivery day of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. At around 09:30 on June 12, 2005, the Plaintiff, at the construction site for the village for the 1st century and the distribution channel, operated a mixing truck (27 tons in total) with ready-mixeds in order to transport ready-mixed at the site of the construction site for the village for the 1st century and the construction site for the village for the above 1st century, while driving the ready-mixed truck at the small river at the entrance of the above 1st century, the Plaintiff was faced with an accident where the scam of the following sub-mixed truck with the unscambling the upper part of the sub-mixed truck of this case (hereinafter referred to as the “accident of this case”).

B. In order to link both farming roads of a small river in front of both sides of the small river in the middle of about 15 years prior to the river between the Defendant and the small river, it is a bridge installed by installing a PVC fume in a way that covers the water flow of the small river at a distance of 26 meters in length and 4.2 meters in width on the small river, and used for the purpose of facilitating the farming thought of residents in both sides of the river and for entering the village. In addition, at the 400-meter upstream above the river between the small river and the small river, another bridge was installed at the 400-meter upstream above the river between the small river and the small river, and there was a sign that prohibits entry of more than 10 tons in front of the above bridge, but no sign that restricts entry of vehicles was installed in the middle bridge between the small river.

C. Meanwhile, immediately before the instant accident, another mixing truck driver** * this first, reported ready-mixed to the construction site of molding, but the site manager***** * from the following day to the construction site through the third bridge, and deliver the instructions to the mixing truck articles*** * * the first following the transportation of the ready-mixed and the first sub-mixed truck passed through the third road, and the other mixing truck passed through the third road.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1, each image of this Court's on-site inspection, witness**,***,* the purport of the whole testimony and arguments of this Court*]

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The defendant shall install a sign indicating restrictions on operation, etc. in a state where vehicles with a certain weight or more are unable to enter, and if such sign is not installed, the defendant shall pay due attention to the management thereof, such as maintenance and repair of all vehicles to allow access (in principle, the defendant is premised on allowing access by all vehicles). However, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages incurred to the plaintiff due to the front portion of the mixed truck in this case, such as damages incurred to the plaintiff, 50,014,27 won, and damages for delay.

3. Determination

The defect in the construction or management of a public structure under Article 5 (1) of the State Compensation Act refers to the state in which the public structure is not in a state of safety ordinarily required for its use. However, it cannot be said that there is a defect in the construction or management of the public structure merely because the public structure is not in a state of completeness and has a defect in its function. In determining whether the construction or management of the public structure is in a state of completeness, it shall be based on whether the construction or management manager has fulfilled the duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required under the social norms in proportion to the danger of the public structure, by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the purpose of the public structure in question, the present state of the installation and the situation of its use (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da56822, Jul. 27, 200

Therefore, it is difficult to view that it is difficult to use the mixed truck of this case as ordinary use of the world bridge because it is not a road under the Road Act, which takes into account large trucks such as truck of this case, because it is not a road under the Road Act, in which the purpose of installation is to allow the mixing of this case to enter the school, and it can be seen that it is difficult to easily recognize that the small truck of this case is not suitable to pass through the world road, and that the small truck of this case is installed on the bridge installed on the above Chapter, and that it can be seen that it was easily known to the defendant, even if it is compared with the sign installed on the bridge installed on the road of 10 tons or more for the above Chapter, the plaintiff's construction and management of the mixing of this case can not be seen as being caused by the negligence of the plaintiff's construction and management of the road of this case without examining the structure, etc. of the bridge of this case.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is decided as per Disposition.

Freeboard