1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The following facts may be found either as a matter of dispute between the parties or as a whole as a whole in the entries in Gap evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 3:

On March 28, 2013, at around 19:10, the Plaintiff driven a bend road (hereinafter referred to as the “road”) on the right side of the Namyang-si, Namyang-si, B, and suffered injury, such as brain dust, etc., due to the fall of a water pool installed illegally at the edge of the road, from around 201, in order to draw water.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”). B.

The road of this case is owned by the Republic of Korea and entered by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport as the management agency.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion occurred due to the Defendant’s error in road management, which managed the instant road. Thus, the Defendant, the road management agency of the instant road, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by the instant accident pursuant to Article 5 of the State Compensation Act.

B. According to the judgment, the term "public structures" as provided by Article 5 (1) of the State Compensation Act includes not only physical or tangible facilities which have been donated to a specific public purpose by the State or local governments, but also cases where the State or local governments manage by ownership, lease and other rights (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da17381, Oct. 23, 1998). However, pursuant to Article 23 of the Road Act, the road management agency of this case intends to be the road of this case by the Defendant pursuant to Article 23 of the Road Act, the route of this case should be directly designated by the Defendant (Article 23 (1) 3), general national highways or local highways located within the jurisdiction of Yangyang-si (Article 23 (2) 3), and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant directly designated the route of this case to the road of this case, but also Article 12 of the Road Act for the road of this case.