logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.10.10 2017가단338061
손해배상(국)
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. On October 25, 2015, around October 25, 2015, the mother of the Plaintiffs’ claim, D (the deceased on October 27, 2017, hereinafter “the deceased”), who is the mother of the Plaintiffs, died on medical treatment and rehabilitation on October 27, 2017.

The accident of this case occurred due to the mistake that the defendant did not install a road protective coverr, and the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiffs, the heir of the deceased, for the damages caused by the defect in the construction and management of public structures.

2. Determination

(a) The attachment of the relevant laws and regulations is as shown;

B. “Defects in the construction and management of public structures” under Article 5(1) of the State Compensation Act refer to the state in which the public structures built and managed for public purposes have failed to have ordinary safety requirements depending on their use.

In addition, the above safety should be determined on the basis of whether the installer or manager of a public structure has fulfilled his/her duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the danger of the public structure. Moreover, financial, human, and physical constraints of the installer or manager should also be considered.

Therefore, even in the case of a road which is a public structure, it cannot be readily concluded that there is a defect because it does not have high level of safety to the extent that it maintains perfect state in its construction and management, and it is sufficient to establish a relative safety with expectation of a common and orderly method of use by its users.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da208074, Oct. 24, 2013). Examining the following facts and circumstances in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, the instant evidence alone is ordinarily used for the cost of planting roadside trees installed and managed by the Defendant.

arrow