logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2014.07.17 2013가단88566
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On July 27, 201, 05:00 to 06:00, the Plaintiff: (a) driven the instant vehicle B Clar 300C (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) at the Jinandong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong (hereinafter “instant road”); (b) the instant vehicle was flooded (hereinafter “the instant flood accident”); and (c) the repair cost therefrom exceeds the purchase cost, and thus, scrapped the instant vehicle.

Since the flood accident of this case occurred due to the defendant's failure to properly manage the road of this case, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the purchase cost of the vehicle of this case 23.7 million won with compensation for damages, and damages for delay from the date of the accident to the date of full payment.

2. “Defects in the construction and management of public structures” under Article 5(1) of the State Compensation Act means that the public structures offered for public purposes have failed to have ordinary safety requirements according to their purposes.

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.

(Supreme Court Decision 2013Da208074 Decided October 24, 2013, etc.). In particular, in a case where a traffic safety defect, which is the original purpose, is discovered due to the act of nature, such as a concentrated rain after the construction of a road, is caused by a third party’s act.

arrow