(a) The level of safety that banks must normally meet and the detailed criteria for determining the safety;

(b) The case denying liability for damages caused by defects in the State’s installation or management on the ground that the collapse of the Han River bank, which occurred from a concentrated rain, was due to a large flood exceeding the planned flood discharge and planned flood level;

A. The bank serves as a public structure, one of the river appurtenances, which is a public structure to prevent the inundation of the river from causing damage to the river by flooding the water into the water of the river. Thus, even if the bank has a perfect and unlimited safety to the extent that it does not collapse at any time, it cannot be deemed that there is no defect in the installation and management of the bank. However, if the bank has an ordinary safety, it shall be deemed that there is no defect if the bank has an ordinary safety. The safety of the bank ordinarily means that the bank has a function or structure to fulfill the above function in time of a usual or ordinary forecast flood, and the river appurtenances are equipped with a safety to the extent that it is possible to prevent a flood from occurring due to a flood. In the case of the facilities of the river appurtenances, it is sufficient to determine the specific safety of the bank, based on the planned flood and the planned flood level, which are the indicators of the facility plan in terms of social and economic constraints, and thus, it shall be deemed that the specific safety of the bank does not exceed the planned flood level, barring special circumstances such as the planned flood discharge and flood level.

Article 5 of the State Compensation Act

Kim Jong-soo et al. and 62

Korea

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

As to each of the above amounts of KRW 1,00,000 and each of them to the plaintiffs, the defendant shall be sentenced to five percent per annum from the day following the day on which a duplicate of the complaint of this case is served to the defendant, twenty-five percent per annum from the day following the day of the final judgment of this case, and twenty-five percent per annum from the day of full payment.

1. Judgment on the main defense of this case

In this case where the plaintiffs asserted that they suffered losses due to the establishment and management defects of the so-called Ilsan Islands (hereinafter the bank of this case), which is the Hanyang-gun, Seoyang-gun, Gyeonggi-do, which is owned and managed by the defendant, the defendant raised that the lawsuit of this case filed against the defendant without going through a decision of the Compensation Council pursuant to Article 9 of the State Compensation Act, should be dismissed as it is illegal and therefore, the lawsuit of this case should be dismissed. Thus, according to the original copy of the decision of compensation for compensation as to the issuance of Kim Dong-dong, which is the executive secretary of the Compensation Council of Seoul District, attached to the record, the plaintiffs can be recognized as having received a decision of dismissal from the Compensation Council of the Seoul District on May 31, 191, which is the date of the lawsuit of this case, and the lawsuit of this case was filed after the decision of the Compensation Council, and therefore the defendant's defense is not justified.

2. Judgment on the merits

Comprehensively taking account of the whole purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 1-1 through 17, it can be recognized that the fact that the Han River 200 meters away from the 12th day of September 9, 1990 to the 12th day of the same month, which resulted from the collapse of Han River 20 meters from the 12th day of the same month, among the banks of this case located below the Hayang-gun, Gyeonggi-do, the Han River 200 meters away from the 12th day of the same month, which led to the collapse of Han River 200 meters from the banks of this case located below the Hayang-gun, the Han River 20 meters away from the collapse area to the 12th day of the same month, and there is no counter-proof otherwise.

Since Han River is a river directly under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Construction under the defendant, and the bank of this case is an important facility to protect its residents from flood damage, the defendant is responsible to frequently check the safety of the bank of this case and to maintain and manage the bank of this case in any case by building, repairing the bank of this case against flood that may occur in the case. (1) Even though the bank of this case was constructed in 1925 and the soil wall of this case was considerably likely to collapse at the time of the end, it was not repaired, and (2) therefore, it was difficult for the plaintiffs to take charge of the flood control of this case's farmland collapse after the above collapse, and (3) the defendant's construction of the bank of this case did not raise the level of flood control while repairing the bank of this case's farmland of this case, and the defendant's construction of the bank of this case's farmland of this case is not required to protect the upper part of the river management plan of this case, and the defendant claimed that the above bank of this case's farmland of this case's 2nd.

Therefore, according to Article 5 (1) of the State Compensation Act, the State or local governments should compensate for damages caused to another person due to defects in the construction or management of roads, rivers or other public structures. The construction or management defects of public structures under Article 5 (1) of the State Compensation Act refer to defective construction or maintenance, storage, etc. of such public structures and the state where there is a risk of harm to other persons by impairing the safety that the public structures should normally have. In light of this, the bank of this case is a public structure as one of river appurtenances, and the bank of this case serves to prevent flood damage caused by flooding due to river water. Thus, in light of the fact that the flood does not exceed the construction and management of the bank of this case, the construction and management defects of the public structures can not be deemed to have functioned in the plan and management of the public structures as well as in the plan and management of the public structures, the construction and management of the river structures can not be deemed to have functioned in a way that can prevent the flood from being flooded by the river, as argued by the plaintiffs.

그러므로 과연 이 사건 제방이 계획홍수량 및 계획홍수위를 기준으로 볼 때 하천의 물의 범람을 막을 수 있는 기능을 갖추고 있지아니하였는지 여부에 관하여 보건대, 갑 제1호증의 5,12, 을 제1호증의 각 기재에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, (1) 이 사건 제방이 1925년 이른바 을축년 대홍수 이후 축조된 제방인 사실, (2) 1984.9. 홍수시에 이 사건 제방에 틈이 생겨 응급조치로 이 사건 제방이 붕괴되는 것을 막아낸 사실, (3) 위 1984.9. 홍수 이후 1985년에 피고 산하 건설부가 이 사건 제방의 보수 공사를 하면서, 계획홍수량을 충주댐 건설로 인하여 홍수조절기능을 갖춘 이후를 기준으로 하여 재현기간 200년의 빈도 개념인 초당 30,650입방미터보다 여유를 두어 초당 32,000입방미터로 결정하고, 이 사건 제방 부근 계획흥수위를 10.29미터로 산징한 다음 그를 기준으로 하여 제방공사를 하면서, 이 사건 제방의 몸체 부분 중, 위 계획홍수위 부위까지만을 석축 및 호안블록으로 보호하고, 그 윗부분은 뗏장으로 설치한 사실, (4) 이 사건 제방의 홍수위 윗부분 여유를 72센티미터 밖에 두지 아니한 사실을 각 인정할 수 있고 달리 반증없으나, 이러한 사실만으로서는 아래에서 인정되는 사실에 비추어 이 사건 제방이 통상 갖추어야 할 안전성을 갖추고 있지 아니한 설치 또는 관리상의 하자가 있다고 보기에는 부족하고, 그 외 달리 위 일산제에 구조상 내지 시설상의 하자가 있어 통상의 안전성을 가지고 있지 아니하였다는 아무런 주장, 입증도 없는 반면, 오히려 갑 제1호증의 6,12,13,15,16, 을 제1호증, 을 제2호증, 을 제3호증의 각 기재와 이 법원의 경기도 고양군청에 대한 사실조회회보결과에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 앞서 본 바와 같이 1984.9. 홍수시 이 사건 제방이 붕괴될 뻔한 위기를 겪기는 하였으나, 그 후, 피고 산하 건설부가 1985년에 행주대교 하류 일산지구와 김포지구의 제방에 대한 전면적인 조사를 실시한 후, 그에 기초하여 이 사건 제방의 몸체 및 기초 보강공사를 실시한 사실, 위 보강공사를 함에 있어 이 사건 제방의 몸체 중 계획홍수위 선까지만 호안블럭 등으로 보호하는 보강공사 방법을 채택한 것은 하천시설 기준에 의거한 것이어서 그 보강공사 시공방법은 적절한 것이었던 사실, 위 보강공사 당시 충주댐이 건설되어 홍수조절능력을 갖게 된 이후를 기준으로 하여 재현기간 200년의 빈도 개념으로 계획홍수량을 산정한 결과 계획홍수량은 초당 30,650입방미터로 산정되었으나, 위 건설부에서는 여유를 감안하여 계획홍수량을 초당 32,000입방미터로 결정하였고, 이에 따라 이 사건 제방 부근의 계획홍수위를 10.29미터로 산정하였던 것이므로 이 사건 제방 부근의 계획홍수량 및 계획홍수위의 산정 역시 적절한 것이었던 사실, 이 사건 제방의 보강공사는 위 계획홍수량 및 계획홍수위를 기준으로 하여 시공하였던 것 인데, 이 사건 홍수는 한강 인도교 지점의 홍수량이 최대 초당 32,986입방미터에 달하였을 뿐만아니라, 이 사건 제방 지점의 최고수위가 11.077미터로서 200년 빈도 계획 홍수위를 약 70센티미터나 상회하는 예기치 못한 대홍수였던 탓에, 비록 위 한강물의 수위가 이 사건 제방 높이보다 높아 이 사건 제방을 범람하지는 아니하였지 만, 계획홍수량 및 계획홍수위를 기준으로 하여 설치된 이 사건 제방이 위와 같이 과다하게 불어난 한강물의 강한 압력을 견디지 못하고 무너지고 말았던 사실을 각 인정할 수 있는바, 그렇다면, 이 사건 제방은 계획홍수량 및 계획홍수위를 기준으로 하여 적절하게 설치되었던 것이고, 위 계획홍수량 및 계획홍수위의 산정 역시 적절하였던 것이므로, 결국 이 사건 제방은 통상의 홍수에 의한 재해를 방지할 수 있는 만큼의 안전성을 갖추고 있었던 것으로 보아야 할 것이고, 이 사건 제방이 이 사건 홍수시에 무너진 것은 이 사건 제방이 통상의 홍수에 의한 재해를 방지할 수 있을 만큼의 안전성을 갖추고 있지 아니한 때문이 아니라 계획홍수량 및 계획홍수위를 초과한 당시의 대홍수 때문이었던 것으로 보아야 할 것이다.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim of this case against the defendant against the defendant on the premise that there is a defect in installation or management in the bank of this case is dismissed as it is without any reason to further examine the remaining points, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)