1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On April 9, 2015, at around 21:00, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as scarcity pressured scarke, etc., by getting out of the forest roads (referring to the public forest roads installed by the Defendant) located in 97-1, Seosan-si, Seosan-si, the fish scarcityd with the members of the club, together with the members of the club.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

In order to reclaim the drainage pipe passing through a forest road, the branch of the Plaintiff was installed with a perfect water level of 20 cm in height and 340 cm in width, in order to reclaim the drainage pipe passing through a forest road.

(hereinafter referred to as “the forest road in this case”). [No dispute exists over the forest road in the area where the instant accident occurred, each entry in the evidence Nos. 1 through 13, 25, and 26, and the video and the purport of the entire pleadings No. 2 and 3.

2. First of all, the determination of the claimant on the forest road in this case is to determine whether there is "defect in the construction and management of public structures" under Article 5 (1) of the State Compensation Act.

"Defects in the construction and management of public structures" under Article 5 (1) of the State Compensation Act means that the public structures, which have been donated for public purposes, are in a state of non-safety that they have to have ordinary safety 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 concluded that there is a defect merely 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). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the foregoing recognition is considered as follows.