With respect to damage caused by defects in the management of national rivers, where the State is the person to whom the administrative affairs accrue and the person to whom the subsidies are granted, and the City/Do is the person to whom the statutory burden under the proviso to Article 59 of the former River Act, and the person to whom the relevant City/Do is the person to whom the State is responsible for the damage under Article 6(2) of the State Compensation Act (affirmative)

Articles 5(1) and 6 of the State Compensation Act; Articles 8(1), 27(5), 59, and 64 subparag. 1 of the former River Act (Amended by Act No. 9605, Apr. 1, 2009);

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

Jeollabuk-do (Attorney Lee Jae-ju, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Second Superintendent General of Korea

Gwangju High Court Decision 2013Na1094 decided August 22, 2013

All appeals filed by both the Plaintiff and Defendant Jeollabuk-do are dismissed. Of the costs of appeal, the costs of appeal incurred between the Plaintiff and Defendant Jeollabuk-do are borne by each party, and the costs of appeal incurred between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Non-

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to Plaintiff 1’s ground of appeal and Defendant Jeollabuk-do’s ground of appeal No. 1

According to the former River Act (amended by Act No. 9605 of Apr. 1, 2009; hereinafter the same), national rivers shall be managed by the Minister of Construction and Transportation (Article 8(1)), and the maintenance and repair of national rivers shall be implemented by the Mayor/Do Governor (proviso of Article 27(5)), and expenses incurred therein shall be borne by the relevant City/Do (proviso of Article 59), and the Minister of Construction and Transportation may partially subsidize such expenses to the City/Do (Article 64).

Where the maintenance and repair of national rivers is delegated to the head of a local government, the head of a local government is responsible for damage caused by defects in the construction and management of national rivers as the person to whom the construction and management of public institutions belongs pursuant to Article 5(1) of the State Compensation Act. If the State grants part of the expenses for the maintenance and repair of national rivers to the relevant City/Do, the State and the relevant City/Do are liable for damages as a person to whom the expenses for the construction and management of public institutions under Article 6(1) of the State Compensation Act are to be borne by the State, respectively. As such, the State is a person to whom the affairs belong and the relevant City/Do is responsible for actual expenses for the construction and management of public institutions under the proviso to Article 59 of the former River Act, and the relevant City/Do is a person to whom the State and the relevant City/Do are liable for damages ultimately under Article 6(2) of the State Compensation Act (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da42819, Jul. 10, 1998).

In relation to the death accident of the deceased non-party on May 12, 2008, the court below acknowledged that the river of this case was delegated management duties, such as the maintenance and repair of the river, to the Governor of Jeollabuk-do as a national river, from 2007 to 2008, and that the plaintiff paid approximately KRW 600 million per year to the defendant Jeollabuk-do for the maintenance and repair of the national river. The defendant Jeollabuk-do obtained approximately KRW 522 million revenues from the national river of this case from 2008 and used them for the maintenance and repair of the national river. The court below determined that the plaintiff was the managing authority and the person bearing the expenses of the river of this case, and the defendant Jeollabuk-do bears the responsibility for damages due to the defect in the management of the river of this case as the person bearing the expenses for the management of the river of this case, and further, the plaintiff and the defendant Jeollabuk-do are all liable for compensation in the internal indemnity relationship.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the person to whom river management work belongs and the person to whom the expenses are borne, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations. Furthermore, the Supreme Court precedents cited in the ground of appeal by Defendant Jeollabuk-do do not purport that, as alleged in the ground of appeal by Defendant Jeollabuk-do, the Supreme Court is the person to whom the affairs belong, as alleged in the ground of appeal by the Defendant Jeollabuk-do, but is the person to whom the affairs

2. As to Plaintiff 2’s ground of appeal and Defendant Jeollabuk-do’s ground of appeal No. 2

The fact-finding or the ratio of the fault of the parties involved in the tort is within the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court unless it is deemed that it is considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da8125 delivered on July 8, 2005, etc.).

Considering the various circumstances indicated in the record, the argument in the grounds of appeal disputing this point is rejected, since the measure determined by the lower court as 25% of the liability ratio between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Jeollabuk-do is not deemed significantly unreasonable in light of the principle of equity.

3. As to Defendant Jeollabuk-do’s ground of appeal

As long as Defendant Jeollabuk-do’s ground of appeal is without merit, the allegation in the ground of appeal disputing the lower court’s judgment on the burden of litigation costs cannot be accepted.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals by the Plaintiff and Defendant Jeollabuk-do are dismissed, and the costs of appeal between the Plaintiff and Defendant Jeollabuk-do are assessed against the Plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)