2016dan506934 Claims

H Maritime Fire Insurance Corporation

South Navy:

August 31, 2016

September 7, 2016

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 21,165,70 won with 5% interest per annum from March 26, 2016 to the service date of a copy of the complaint, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an individual motor vehicle comprehensive insurance holder with respect to a passenger car owned by Nonparty A with Nonparty A 39 s.000 (hereinafter “the instant passenger car”).

B. A around 16:15 on August 23, 2015, at around 16:15, south-west, South-west, a Daj, a village at the bus stops at the bus stops at the entrance of the village, shocked A with an Aluminium fence, and fell below the retaining wall.

C. The instant car was damaged by A and B, a passenger, due to the foregoing accident.

D. The Plaintiff paid hospital expenses and agreed amount of KRW 19,527,570, 3,578,000, 19,225,970 to A according to the above individual car comprehensive insurance contract. The Plaintiff paid hospital expenses and agreed amount of KRW 19,225,970 to B.

E. The defendant is the use, maintenance and supervisor of the above stop.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Defendant, who is a road manager, has caused the instant accident by installing only a fence for pedestrians in a place where a vehicle protection facility is required, and not installing a vehicle protection fence, the Defendant is liable to compensate A for the instant accident due to the defect in the construction and management of the public structure, and the Plaintiff, who is an insurer, seek compensation for damages equivalent to 1/2 of the amount of damages on behalf of the Defendant in subrogation of A.

B. Determination

"Defect in the construction and management of a public structure" under Article 5 (1) of the State Compensation Act refers to a state in which a public structure, which has been donated to a public purpose, fails to have safety ordinarily in accordance with its use. It cannot be readily concluded that there is a defect in the construction or management of a public structure on the ground that it does not have high level of safety to the extent that it always maintains a perfect state in the construction and management of a public structure. Since the duty to take protective measures imposed on the installer or manager of a public structure is not to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the danger of the public structure, it is sufficient that the road is a public structure, even in the case of a road, to have a relative safety in which the user expectations a method of using the public structure in an orderly manner of using it, taking into account the relationship with the public structure and the financial, human and physical constraints of the person who installs it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da9158, Aug. 23, 2002)

With respect to the instant case, the instant accident site refers to a facility installed mainly for preventing a vehicle from departing from the road, due to the fact that the instant accident site is an area adjacent to the stopping place in the separate photograph, and the aforementioned photograph, Gap evidence 12, Eul evidence 14 through 18, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-5 and 6-6, and the entire purport of oral proceedings, i.e., the following entities: according to the guidelines for installation and management of road safety facilities, the vehicle protection fence means a facility installed mainly for reducing passengers' injuries and damages to the vehicle at a minimum level and returning the vehicle to the regular direction. The instant accident site cannot be seen as a road surface used directly for the vehicle traffic, and it cannot be seen as a place where the driver of the vehicle fell on the road while driving on the road, and it cannot be seen as a place where the vehicle cannot be used by the driver of the vehicle due to the vehicle's negligence, not by the vehicle's fault but by the vehicle's fault.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Freeboard

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.